Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock/

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND

Accounts ordered,
of the Civil. Contingencies Fund, 1950–51, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1951, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Gatwick Airport

Mr. Gordon Touche: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he can make any statement regarding the future of Gatwick Airport.

Mr. F. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement about the future of Gatwick Airport.

The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Maclay): Consideration is being given to the development of Gatwick as a bad weather alternate for London Airport and as a base for some air transport activities. I hope that a decision on the future of the airport will not be long delayed.

Mr. Beswick: Since this is a matter which involves consideration both by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Civil Aviation could we not have expected that some results of co-ordination would have arisen in this case?

Mr. Maclay: Rapid as we are in our action I think that to deal with this question in three weeks would be a little too rapid, but it is being dealt with as quickly as possible.

Airways Corporations (Ownership)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he can yet state the Government's policy with regard to future ownership of British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways Corporation.

Mr. Maclay: No change of ownership is contemplated.

Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be general approval of the repudiation by the Minister of his Conservative colleagues who, before the Election, stated that parts would be handed back to private enterprise?

Mr. Maclay: There is no repudiation whatsoever in the reply I have given. I have answered the Question strictly according to the way in which it was asked.

Mr. Beswick: If there is no repudiation, can the hon. Gentleman explain the statement by the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) who did say that the Conservative Party intended to restore a measure of private enterprise in this field?

Mr. Maclay: I think that from the remarks the hon. Member has made he will see that that supplementary question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

North-East Area

Mr. George Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he has yet agreed to the establishment of an airport on Tees-side; whether British European Airways intend to provide a regular service; and whether use will be made of helicopters for short-range communication between London and Tees-side.

Mr. Maclay: The municipal aerodrome at West Hartlepool serves Tees-side. I am informed that the British European Airways Corporation has undertaken to make, with the help of local representatives, a joint survey of the air service requirements of the North-Eastern area including Tees-side. With regard to the last part of the Question no plans can be made for inter-city services between London and Tees-side until the development of a twin-engined helicopter is further advanced.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this survey will be started?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot give an exact date for that yet.

Insurance (International Convention)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what agreements through international convention have been made for the provision of insurance against damage to persons and property on the ground from aircraft.

Mr. Maclay: Consideration of a Convention to replace the Rome Convention of 1933, which was not ratified by the United Kingdom, has reached an advanced stage. The Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation is shortly to decide and announce the date of a meeting to complete the new convention and open it for signature.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister not aware that it is rather absurd that motorists have to be, insured against third-party risk but at the moment people who fly do not, and as these arrangements have been going on years and years, is it not time something was concluded about them?

Mr. Maclay: I think it is clear that we should wait if possible, for the conclusion of the international convention rather than take unilateral action.

Helicopter Service

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many passengers were carried on the. Birmingham-London helicopter service during the initial period of six months' operation ended 29th November, 1951; what is the percentage. of maximum-carrying capacity represented by these passengers; and whether he will extend the service to Ringway, Manchester, and Speke, Liverpool, at an early date.

Mr. Maclay: In the first six months of operation 821 passengers were carried, representing 48.5 per cent. of capacity. Extensions of this experimental service are not contemplated until more economic helicopters are available.

B.O.A.C. (Profits)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he can give the latest

available figures sowing the operating profit or loss shown by British Overseas Airways Corporation during the current year.

Mr. Maclay: I am informed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation that in the six months ended 30th September, 1951, the Corporation made an operating profit of £974,000, with a net profit of £133,000 after providing for interest on capital and other non-operating expenditure.
It will, of course, be appreciated that this period covers the summer months which are the most profitable and it cannot be assumed that the second half of the year will be equally good.

Mr. Beswick: Is not it also fair to compare these figures with the corresponding period last year, which showed a loss of something over £2 million, and in view of the exceptional progress made, does not this confirm the fact that public capital invested in the industry could reap exceptionally good rewards and that this is not the time to permit private capital to come into it?

Mr. Maclay: I would be the last to detract from the performance of B.O.A.C. during that period, but I should add that airlines all over the world have been showing quite exceptional results during this period.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend ask B.O.A.C., in the next balance sheet, to take into account the hidden subsidies, one for example, of £3½million worth of flying boat equipment disposed of after a few months use by the Ministry of Civil Aviation?

Mr. Maclay: I think that supplementary question would require careful examination.

Mr. Beswick: Given careful examination, would not it show that this hidden subsidy was in fact given to British aircraft manufacturing industry, mainly privately owned, and not publicly owned?

Mr. Maclay: With great respect, I would suggest that that supplementary question is rather hypothetical.

ARAB AND ISRAELI FORCES (U.K. TRAINING)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the Arab States are being given military training in the United Kingdom; and how many members of the Israeli forces are receiving similar facilities.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): According to the most recent figures available, 134 members of the armed forces of the Arab States and 33 members of the Israel forces are receiving military training in this country.

Mr. Shepherd: As we are training those Israeli forces and Arab forces will my right hon. Friend resist pressure to stop this form of liaison between this country and others?

Mr. Eden: I think I am in favour of the continuance of these schemes.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Do these officers include any Syrian officers and, although this is a little wide, are we to have any statement as to the attitude of the Government towards Colonel Shishakli.

Mr. Eden: I think that is extremely wide. In reply to the first part of the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question, the figure is four.

BREACHES OF TREATIES (U.N. POWERS)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take to secure for the United Nations Security Council or Assembly power to enforce treaties or agreements which States may desire to break unilaterally.

Mr. Eden: It is not my present intention to take any step designed to give the Security Council or the General Assembly greater powers than they already possess under the Charter. Nor do I consider that the amendments of the Charter which would be necessary for this purpose could be brought into force. His Majesty's Government are, however, at present seeking to bring about improvements in the procedure of the General Assembly so that, should

breaches of treaties or other legal questions arise, it will first inform itself of the legal position and then direct its action so as to support the maintenance of treaty obligations and the rule of law.

Mr. T. Reid: May I ask the Minister if under the present system the fact is, whatever it may be in theory, that a wrong-doer can get away with impunity in respect of his misdeeds, whereas the injured party is bound by international law not to take the law into his own hands?

Mr. Eden: It certainly has sometimes worked out that way, but in view of the only condition under which the Charter can be amended being, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by means of unanimity, I do not think I should serve any useful purpose by trying to bring that about just now.

BACKWARD AREAS (U.N. FUND)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the United Nations organisation that they should establish a system by which all prosperous States should contribute to a United Nations organisation fund for the development of backward areas.

Mr. Eden: I fear that it is not possible at this time to undertake any new obligations in support of such a proposal.

Mr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that from the end of the First World War up to 1945 this country had given the sum of £161 million to our Dependencies and that from then—omitting the war period, when we gave a lot away too—we gave up to £254 million to our Dependencies? Does he think that this little country can go on distributing such vast sums of money and is not it absolutely essential to pass the burden to some extent to United Nations?

Mr. Eden: I did not quite understand that to be the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's Question. We will certainly share any burden we are at present carrying but I thought the hon. Gentleman was asking me to shoulder yet another one and I did not think I could.

KOREA (BRITISH REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how the views of His Majesty's Government are transmitted to the Armistice Negotiating Committee in Korea; through what channels of communication it is necessary for messages to pass; and what is the average length of time taken;
(2) what is the nature of the existing channel of communication between His Majesty's Government and the commander of the United Nations' Forces in Korea.

Mr. Eden: The views of His Majesty's Government can be made known to the United Nations Commander and the United Nations Armistice Delegation in Korea by the British Joint Services Mission and by His Majesty's Embassy in Washington, through the United States Defence and State Departments respectively, and by the personal representative of the United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff at General Ridgway's Headquarters in Tokyo. In addition, His Majesty's Embassy in Washington can make proposals at the bi-weekly meetings which are attended by representatives of those members of the United Nations with Forces in Korea. Our views always receive due consideration. It is not possible to estimate the average time taken in transmission.

Mr. Hale: Is it then really the position that on this exceedingly vital matter no direct communication is possible with the negotiating authority on the spot and that every representation we make is in fact made via America? May I ask whether representations are constantly being made or whether the whole policy is being left as merely a matter of occasional casual observation?

Mr. Eden: I can only say what my personal experience has been. We have sent communications to the headquarters in Tokyo. They go direct, if we so desire, through the headquarters in Tokyo to General Ridgway. We have sent from time to time suggestions which we think useful and they have been received in that spirit, but the main responsibility must be with the Commander-in-Chief acting on behalf of the United Nations themselves.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United Nations Association in this country has expressed the view that the United Nations military commander ought to be responsible to a committee of control appointed by the General Assembly, and that this is really the only way to give United Nations the status in this conflict which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants it to have?

Mr. Eden: The position is that there are these meetings in Washington of all the countries who have Forces in Korea, and that seems to me a reasonable basis on which to found the arrangements, because countries who have the Forces are, reasonably enough, entitled to the major share in the discussions.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if these people only meet from time to time in Washington they are thereby deprived of having any direct influence upon negotiations which have now gone on for four-and-a-half months and have long ceased to be purely military and which have most important political effects?

Mr. Eden: The meetings in Washington are held twice a week, but that is not the only means by which we express our views. We do so through the State Department direct to Tokyo, and I am satisfied these views are given fair and proper weight.

SLESVIG-HOLSTEIN FRANCHISE LAW

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that in a recent speech the Danish Foreign Minister in the Danish Parliament complained that the new Franchise Law, passed on 10th October, 1951, by the Diet of Slesvig-Holstein, will deprive the Danish population of South Slesvig of their fair share of representation in the Diet, and that this is inconsistent with the Kiel Agreement sponsored by the British Government; and whether he will make representations on the subject to the German authorities.

Mr. Eden: A spokesman of the Provincial Government of Slesvig-Holstein has assured the South Slesvig Voters' Association (which is the party of Danish sympathisers) that if the new law has the


effect, in a future election, of leaving them unrepresented in the Diet, steps will be taken to find a satisfactory solution. The South Slesvig Voters' Association have also announced their intention of bringing the matter before the Federal Constitutional Court if no change acceptable to them is made in the law. There would therefore seem to be no grounds for action by His Majesty's Government.

Professor Savory: Would my right hon. Friend finally compare the old law with the new? I have copies of both of them here which I shall be glad to pass to him. I think he will see the experts are perfectly right when they say it is quite probable that the Danish-minded population would have no representation whatever under this law.

Mr. Eden: I have compared the two laws and it is true that under the new law they will not do as well as they did under the old one. I am bound to say that under the old law I think they did pretty well—5.4 per cent. of votes cast for two seats. That was not too bad in a small Parliament. But the reason is not the presence of this particular organisation, it is the other splinter bodies which cause anxiety and which bring about these laws.

BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES, U.S.A.

Mr. Frederick Gough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the necessity to curtail Government expenditure, particularly of dollars, he will make inquiries as to what economies can be effected in the Information Services at the British Embassy in Washington.

Mr. Eden: Government expenditure in all fields, including that of the overseas information services, is now under review. As far as the particular question of expenditure on the British Information Services in the United States is concerned, I cannot give any undertaking at present.

Mr. Gough: Will my right hon. Friend give the assurance that, in the meantime, he will see that no unnecessary expenditure is incurred in publications the material of which is open to our Press?

Mr. Eden: I would like to look at that. I have seen something of the work of these services, and I think that many of them do pretty good work.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have regard to the very great value of these services in getting the British point of view put across in America, and will he oppose any shortsighted cutting down of essential services?

Mr. Eden: indicated assent.

GERMAN RE-ARMAMENT

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that, before committing the United Kingdom to support any measures of German re-armament, His Majesty's Government will first obtain the views of Parliament upon whatever measures are proposed.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. But His Majesty's Government will naturally keep the House informed of important developments.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep anxiety among many hon. Members on this side of the House that, when we re-assemble after the Recess, we shall find this country committed to measures of German rearmament, which many of us feel to be full of danger both to peace and to the security of this country? Is it not imperative that, on a matter of this kind, fundamentally affecting the whole course of European politics, Members of Parliament should be taken into confidence and their views heard and expressed? The House has not yet been given an opportunity to argue this matter.

Mr. Eden: I should not have thought that there was any dispute about that. We had a foreign affairs debate quite recently, and in this respect the policy followed is in no way an innovation, as compared with the steps taken by the previous Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first answer which he has given is a monstrous one and an affront to the House of Commons? Does he not realise that this is a very serious matter, and that hon. Members of this House have the right and duty to inquire into it in all its implications?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman has not understood. The answer I have given is in accordance with the immemorial practice. I was asked whether I would


give an assurance that, before committing the United Kingdom, I would consult this House. The answer is that it is the responsibility of the Government to take these decisions, and it is for Parliament to confirm or reject them, as Parliament sees fit. I could not possibly deny the Government the power which they have always enjoyed for generations.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Inter-Departmental Committee considering State and diplomatic immunity is expected to issue its report.

Mr. Eden: The Inter-Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Somervell has issued a report on the questions falling within the field of diplomatic immunity which were submitted for its consideration, and I hope this report will be published shortly.
The committee has not issued a final report on the question of State immunity.

Mr. Davies: Can the Foreign Secretary tell me when he thinks it is likely that a Report on State immunity will be issued, and whether he will speed up other Departments which are considering this, if that is necessary? I am sure he will realise the urgency in this case, in view of the statement made by his noble Friend in the House of Lords yesterday indicating that the Tass Agency refuses to waive the immunity laws?

Mr. Eden: I quite agree that there has been delay in publishing the report because, I think, other Departments have not given their consent. I am doing my best to see that it is published at once.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the number of persons in the United Kingdom in 1938, 1945 and at the latest convenient date who were entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities; and the number of these whose entitlement arose solely through employment on the domestic staff of a head of mission.

Mr. Eden: The total number of persons enjoying privileges and immunities in the United Kingdom as diplomatic representatives of foreign States and as members of their suites in 1938 was 1,132, of whom 512 were employed in the personal

households of heads of missions or in the chanceries of the missions. In 1945, the corresponding figures were 1,994 and 537; and, at the present time, they are 3,001 and 861.
In addition, privileges and immunities were granted in 1945 to 41 senior officials of international organisations. The corresponding figure at the present time is 172.

Mr. Davies: In view of the rather rapid increase in the number of persons entitled to immunity, will the Foreign Secretary give urgent consideration to the report, to which he has recently referred, and see that some action is taken in this matter?

Mr. Eden: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not rebuking me for these matters.

EAST AFRICA

Education (Europeans, Uganda)

Mr. Archer Baldwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much is collected from the European community in Uganda in education tax; how many European children there are in Uganda between the ages of six and 14; and what educational facilities are available for them.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Education tax collected from the European community in Uganda during the first eight months of 1951 amounted to £5,369. It is estimated that there are 600 European children in Uganda between the ages of six and 14. There are three Government primary schools for European children, and facilities are provided also in a number of mission stations. In addition, many children attend schools in Kenya, some financial assistance being granted by the Uganda Government.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that up to a few months ago there was a staff of only four teachers to teach in a Government school of 150 pupils in Kampala?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will follow up that observation of my hon. Friend.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House the cost per child of the education of European children, as compared with that of African children?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not without notice, and I very much doubt whether hard-pressed Governments in the Colonies should be asked for information of that kind.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the matter, when I think he will find that the information is already available?

Kenya (Constitutional Committee)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a joint committee of European, Indian and African members of the Kenya Legislative Council, as proposed by his predecessor, has yet been set up to recommend constitutional changes for Kenya; and what progress has been made in the discussions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The arrangement on which my right hon. Friend's predecessor reached agreement in Kenya was that this body should be set up within a year of the start of the next Kenya Legislative Council in May, 1952. That arrangement still holds, and the second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: In view of the fact that some members of the Legislative Council are unaware of any progress in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to encourage it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that all the plans laid down by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), our predecessor in this matter, are being carried through.

Tanganyika (Removal of Families)

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of Meru families resident in the Sanya corridor in Tanganyika who are now faced with enforced eviction; and to how many European settlers and for what form of agricultural development this land is now being leased.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the resistance by 2,500 tribesmen to their removal from the Lanya corridor in the Tanganyika Northern Province and the arrest of 13 of the tribesmen, whether

an undertaking can be given that no punitive measures will be taken until the cooperation of the chiefs and tribesmen has been secured.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Under a scheme which was accepted by the native authority and publicly announced two years ago, 350 families are to be moved by free transport, and with compensation for disturbance, to land adjoining the area occupied by the rest of the tribe. This has been specially prepared for them by the Tanganyika Government by the installation of piped water supplies, bore-holes and cattle dips. The families removed will be given free food while establishing themselves. As part of the same scheme the Tanganyika Government have acquired a considerable area of land for the use of the tribe. This land was formerly alienated to Europeans, and some of it has been acquired by compulsory purchase, for the use of the tribe. The area to be vacated will be leased for large-scale cattle-ranching. The numbers likely to be thus employed cannot yet be estimated.
I regret that in spite of the acceptance of the scheme by the native authority some degree of compulsion has been necessary to complete this scheme of land re-allocation which is of unquestionable benefit to the Meru Tribe and to the economic development of the territory. Everything possible has been done to secure the consent of the individual tribesmen concerned. Action cannot be further delayed but certainly no measures will be taken beyond the minimum necessary to secure the objective in view.

Mr. Hynd: As the Minister refers to 350 families when originally the estimate was a minimum of 500 families, will he say whether there are still 150 families left on the original soil, and, if so, whether they are going in for cattle ranching or what?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said in my answer, the number of families to be moved is 350.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Minister realise that these tribesmen, rightly or wrongly, are very much attached to the old tribal lands and that that fact presents a psychological difficulty which requires very great patience indeed; and,


further, that the matter will be made even more difficult if punitive action is taken before the utmost consideration is given to this psychological aspect?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have given a very careful answer in regard to any action taken, but I would say to hon. Members and to those who are rightly concerned with the welfare of this and other tribes that their removal from semi-arid land to better land is in their own interest. The friends of Africans can play a better part by encouraging them to do this than by lending themselves to any suggestion that proper consultation has not taken place.

Mr. John Paton: Would the Minister inform the House who, are the beneficiaries of this newly formed ranch land, and whether it is the case that some of the new lands offered to the tribesmen are tsetse infested?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All those questions were gone into by the native authorities, and they are fully satisfied with the proposals of the late Government, which this Government fully endorse.

Mr. Paton: Would the Minister please answer my question? Who are the beneficiaries in respect of the land?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope the beneficiaries are those people who will bring prosperity to the whole territory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will they be Europeans?"] Yes, no doubt they will be Europeans. This project was gone into very carefully by the late Government with the native authorities, and I would strongly deprecate the introduction of any racial consideration in the matter. The future of this territory, like so many others, lies in a partnership between various peoples, and hon. Gentlemen who rightly set great store by the interests of Africans would help them by encouraging the development of this new partnership.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister make it clear that the land being compulsorily acquired from the Europeans on which to settle these Africans is very much better land?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Coal Deposits, Tanganyika

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent coal has been found in Tanganyika; and what prospects there are for its development on any significant scale.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A deposit of over 200 million tons of coal has been found in one coalfield in Southern Tanganyika. Of this, 65 million tons are so far thought to be extractable. Investigation of another deposit is proceeding. Development prospects cannot be stated without further technical information but, apart from this, transport to the coast must be provided. This is being studied.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to his hon. Friends that this project was undertaken by a public authority, the Colonial Development Corporation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A public authority in which both sides of the House co-operated.

Sir R. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this arose out of the work of the Colonial Development Corporation, whose work in other areas has often been rather severely criticised?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, I have already said so.

Sisal Industry

Sir Leslie Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will state the tonnages of sisal exported from East Africa in 1939 and in 1951, to date;
(2) what was the average price received in 1939 by sisal growers in East Africa for their exported crop and the average price they have so far received in 1951;
(3) what were the daily rates of pay received by African labourers in East African sisal plantations in 1939 and in 1951, to date.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Exports of sisal from the three East African territories combined amounted to 119,000 tons in 1939 and to 84,500 tons during the first six months of 1951. Figures for subsequent months are being obtained from East Africa.
I will obtain for the hon. Member the information regarding prices received by the growers and wages received by the sisal estate labourers and will write to him as soon as it becomes available.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman, on his visit to East Africa, discuss with the Governors of the territories what steps are necessary to be taken, first, to control the fast-rising prices of sisal and, second, to ensure that the African labourers working on sisal plantations get a more proportionate share of the growing prosperity of the industry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly look into the two points made by the hon. Member, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I will also thank the employers and workers concerned, who last year by their exports of sisal obtained for us £16 million sterling in value.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the high proportion of dollars earned by this industry?

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend at the same time show the effect of the sisal export tax on the reward the sisal growers are getting? Will he also show the comparative figures of wages paid to African labourers on sisal plantations and those paid by the Overseas Food Corporation?

Corporal Punishment, Tanganyika

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the postponement of the introduction of a Bill abrogating the use of corporal punishment until the next session of the Tanganyika Legislature, contrary to the intention of the despatch dealing with the subject, he will instruct the Administration immediately to proceed with the Measure.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. The opportune moment for introducing this Bill to restrict the number of offences for which corporal punishment may be awarded must be left to the decision of the Tanganyika authorities.

Mr. Sorensen: Nevertheless, is it not true that this is contrary to the despatch to which this Question refers? In those circumstances, cannot the right hon.

Gentleman at least communicate with the Legislature pointing out how desirable it is that in this and in other areas such a Bill is brought into operation soon?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is quite misinformed on the contents of the despatch, which included the admonition that it might well be imprudent to abolish corporal punishment at a stroke of the pen.

Makerere College (Indian Students)

Mr. John Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Indian students are attending Makerere College; and what are the fees paid by such students.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Full information on both points is not immediately available in the Colonial Office. I am making inquiry and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Makerere was intended to be an inter-racial college, that it is alleged that Indian students are being charged fees of £500 per year each, and that as a result there are now only three Indian students in attendance at the college? What steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to stop this racial discrimination, in view of his declaration in reply to Question 27 that he opposed it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We certainly hope that this will in time become an interracial college, but its main purpose is to cater for Africans. We are making inquiries into one or two of the points which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I will write to him shortly. If he puts a Question down again as soon as the House re-assembles I hope to have a more considered answer.

COLONIAL EMPIRE

Vegetable Oils and Fats

Mr. Cyril Bence: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the figures, quantity and value of vegetable oils and fats produced from Colonial Territories in the past 12 months.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The latest figures available are for the year ending 30th June, 1951.
Exports in this period were: oilseeds and copra 922,000 tons, vegetable oils 298,000 tons, total value £80 million.
I will arrange for more detailed figures to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the groundnuts scheme made any contribution to this total?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A very modest one, compared with that of private enterprise.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Does not the vast amount of material produced in the Colonial Territories, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, justify the colonial policy of the late Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not quite see the application of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The promotion and production of raw materials is obviously a highly desirable objective, in which we are all engaged. The best way to do it may well evoke a certain amount of difference of opinion.

Following are the details of colonial exports of vegetable oils and oilseeds:


(i) To THE U.K., (ii) To OTHER DESTINATIONS DURING THE YEAR ENDING 30TH JUNE, 1951


Commodity
Year ending June, 1951





'000 tons
£'000


Coconut Oil
(i)
…
18
1,952



(ii)
…
55
8,060


Palm Oil
(i)
…
222
17,575



(ii)
…
3
320


Copra (a)
(i)
…
59
3,301



(ii)
…
106
9,437


Groundnuts
(i)
…
275
15,158


Palm Kernels
(i)
…
472
23,472



(ii)
…
10
687

Note:—(a) Excludes trade between the British West Indian Colonies.

SUMMARY





'000 tons
£'000


Vegetable Oils
(i)
…
240
19,527



(ii)
…
58
8,380





298
27,907


Copra and Oilseeds
(i)
…
806
41,931



(ii)
…
116
10,124





922
52,055


GRAND TOTALS
…
1,220
79,962

Racial Discrimination

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the review of legislative and administrative racial discrimination in the Colonies undertaken by his predecessor has been completed; and whether it will be published.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Copies of the survey of differential treatment by race in the laws of British tropical African territories were placed in the Library in August. A similar survey in regard to the non-African territories will be made available to the House later, when consultations with the Governors are completed.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the very great importance of this report, whether he will consider publishing it in the form of a White Paper or in another way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Gentleman and others interested had better first look at the documents in the Library. They already amount to some 50 or 60 pages, and it is open to further consideration whether the documents in the Library, at this stage, with the Reports already presented, are not adequate for the purposes which we all have in mind.

Deportation

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the review undertaken by his predecessor of the powers and practice of deportation in the Colonies has yet been completed; and whether it will be published.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am unable to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on this subject on 28th November.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I heard that reply. Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify a little the character of his reply? Does he propose to publish a report after these consultations, or just to make a decision?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The only statement of Government policy so far made on this matter was made in this House by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on behalf of our predecessors


on 8th March, when he undertook to make a statement in the House. We are quite prepared to do that, but if hon. Members want some other form of presentation we are quite open to consideration on the matter.

Retired Civil Servants (Pensions)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which Colonial Governments have increased the pensions of retired public servants of all grades during the last six months.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Northern Rhodesia, Tanganyika, Kenya and Trinidad Governments have introduced general increases during the last six months. The details of the schemes vary.

Mr. Reid: Can the Minister say whether these increases have been given to all grades or only to a certain number of civil servants? In view of the fact that the pensions of civil servants who retired before the war have now a purchasing power of only about one-third to one-half of what they had when first given, will the Minister encourage all Colonies to increase the pensions of their retired civil servants?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will send the hon. Gentleman details of the various schemes. They vary very considerably and any answer applying to all four would be an inaccurate one. I realise the difficulties of colonial pensioners, and the best protection His Majesty's Government can give to colonial pensioners and others is to combat the growing inflation in our economy.

FALKLAND ISLANDS (MEAT SUPPLIES)

Captain Robert Ryder: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to increase meat supplies from the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Colonial Development Corporation is constructing a refrigeration plant in the Colony, and I hope this will encourage, farmers to look to the meat market instead of concentrating upon wool. But it would be unwise to expect early results or results on a big scale.

Captain Ryder: When my right hon. Friend says that it is unwise to expect early results, is he aware that this project was due for completion last March, that it is still not completed, and looks as if it is going to cost twice the amount of the original estimate?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This project, like a number of others, has run into many difficulties, and we are now giving urgent consideration to the problems involved.

CYPRUS (CIVIL DEFENCE)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what Civil Defence measures are being taken in the Island of Cyprus.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A general Civil Defence plan is being prepared by the Cyprus Government and detailed schemes for the six districts have been completed. Emergency medical stores and fire-fighting equipment have been ordered, and a fire officer is being recruited in the United Kingdom. The Director-General of Civil Defence Training (Sir John Hodsoll) visited Cyprus early this year and advised the Cyprus Government on Civil Defence matters, and his recommendations are being followed.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us if this island has now become a bombing base—and, if so, it is going to be very dangerous for the local inhabitants in the event of war—and whether he is satisfied that sufficient precautions have been taken to protect the civil population?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, recent events have shown that this island plays an important part in the security of the free world, and we are taking proper steps to see that the duty of His Majesty's Government towards the people of Cyprus in regard to defence is properly fulfilled.

WEST AFRICA

"Nigerian Citizen" (Grants)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the annual amount expended by the Government of Nigeria on the publication of the paper "Nigerian Citizen."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Northern Region of Nigeria recently voted a single


grant of £6,000 from regional funds to the Gaskiya Corporation to cover an expected loss on the publication of the "Nigerian Citizen" during the current financial year.

Mr. Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion, if any, of that grant is make by the Colonial Office under these powers in Section 3?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what sums the corporation has so far received. It received £163,000 from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, £10,000 from the Nigerian Government and a Colonial Development and Welfare loan of £35,000. This further money is in addition to the grants already made.

Mr. George Wigg: Does not the Minister agree that as this paper is supported by public funds great care should be taken to see that its editorial policy is in conformity with the policy of the Nigerian Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite another matter. The motto of another paper run by the same corporation is that "Truth costs more than a penny." When considering losses, I think we ought to bear that fact in mind.

Timber Trade

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to sustain the timber trade from West Africa, in view of the substantial increase in shipping charges in recent months.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no information indicating that the West African timber trade is likely to require assistance as a result of the recent increases in shipping charges.

Sir R. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to consider a case, if it is put to him, to show there is a danger of this?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certainly prepared to consider any correspondence.

MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Communist Bandits

Mr. Gough: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that the perpetrators of the atrocities in

Malaya are usually dressed in Communist uniforms, he will arrange for them not to be described in official reports merely as bandits.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Many murders and other atrocities are, in fact, committed by persons not dressed in uniform. Although the Communist terrorists are sometimes referred to simply as "bandits," this does not indicate any failure by the Government or the people of Malaya to recognise the Malayan Communist Party as the directing force behind the present campaign of violence. Personally I prefer the description "terrorist."

Rural Industrial Development Corporation

Mr. S. S. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made by the Rural Industrial Development Corporation in Malaya; and what is the total of the loans made by it to assist in relieving the poverty of the Malayan peasants and fishermen and in assisting marketing and credit co-operatives.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the first progress report, dealing with the period up to the end of June. I shall send a further report when it becomes available.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Ceylon co-operative producing, marketing and consumer schemes have been working with great satisfaction? Is he aware that this is the best way of protecting the peasants and fishermen from exploitation, and will he stress the importance of this form of assistance to the Rural Industrial Development Corporation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If real value is to come from this highly valuable development it must be because we build carefully and patiently. We shall be very glad indeed to profit from the admirable example of Ceylon.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make copies of the report available in the Library?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly see that copies are put in the Library.

Chief Factory Inspector

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made in the appointment of a chief factory inspector in Singapore; how long it is since the post was first advertised; how many applications have been received; and what are the qualifications required and the salary offered.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The salary is £1,463 to £1,582 a year plus cost of living allowance and the qualifications are those of an experienced factory inspector in this country. The vacancy was notified in June. A candidate who was interviewed later withdrew but a few more have now come forward.

Mr. Awbery: Is the reason for the delay in the appointment the high standard of qualifications required or the low salary offered?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In bearing in mind questions of salary we have to consider the effect on a large number of other people doing equally important jobs in Singapore and elsewhere. With regard to qualifications, I think we certainly need very high qualifications for a highly important task of this kind, but we are still hopeful of filling the vacancy.

Mr. Awbery: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what are the qualifications required?

Mawai Settlement, Johore

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Malayan-Chinese Association was not consulted before any decision was taken to abandon the Mawai settlement in Johore; why the families were only given three days notice to decide where to go; and if the Government will compensate the families for any loss they have sustained.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The villagers were given the option of being re-settled in a wired village or moved elsewhere. They were addressed by the president of the local Malayan-Chinese Association and chose the latter alternative. The offer to re-settle them at Mawai still stands. They themselves wished to leave as soon as possible but no time limit was set. Those who have gone to other re-settlement areas will be paid a disturbance allowance.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Is it not a fact that this settlement was attacked by Communists because it was not given protection, and that many of these villagers lost their lives, and that it is vital that all these settlements where squatters are being regrouped should be given adequate protection from Communist terrorists?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it is a highly desirable objective but in this matter where we, as did the previous Government, have to carry out re-settlement on a large scale in a short time the desirable is not possible of achievement. In this case four young men were murdered and 21 abducted, and the alternatives offered to the villagers were as I have explained.

Suspects (Police Interrogation)

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what inquiries have been made into the methods used by police officers in interrogating suspects in Malaya; and with what result.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There have been many rather wild accusations of ill-treatment and it is clearly in the Communist interest to propagate such stories. Any specific allegations have been carefully investigated, and in the few cases where cause has been shown, stern action has been taken.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State, during his present visit to Malaya, to investigate this subject with particular reference to the removal of detainees from detention camps for interrogation at C.I.D. headquarters, about which there have been a number of disquieting and not in the least wild reports in such responsible newspapers as "The Times"? Will he also consider some aspects of the subject about which I had a good deal of correspondence with his predecessor?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With regard to the correspondence with the previous Secretary of State I hope that a reply will be sent soon. As regards the general question, I think more time and trouble should be devoted to considering the problems of the police officers themselves, and our thanks ought to be given to and our thoughts ought to be with


them in their appallingly difficult task. Much of the time spent in checking ill-founded allegations could have been better employed in helping to bring this terrible war to an end.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the lives of British settlers may well depend on the successful and effective interrogation of suspects?

Mr. J. Griffiths: I appreciate the position in Malaya, which I saw for myself, but will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that if complaints are made against the force which may damage our cause he considers it essential to inquire into them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was at pains to say that at the start of my answer. Any specific allegations have been most carefully investigated, and in the few cases where cause has been shown, stern action has been taken.

Malacca (Municipal Elections)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps were taken to emphasise to the citizens of Malacca the importance of the recently held municipal elections in that town.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am consulting the Acting High Commissioner and will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.

Mr. Wyatt: Is this not an unsatisfactory way of submerging this incident where all the candidates were unopposed owing to the fact that insufficient publicity was given to the elections and insufficient importance was attached to their significance as being the first of a series of elections ever to be held on the mainland of Malaya?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman had better await the communication which we shall get from the Acting High Commissioner.

Mr. Awbery: In the meantime will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that all people who are qualified to be on the register are placed there?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We had better wait until we hear from the Commissioner.

Political Progress

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in Singapore on 29th November that political progress was not an integral part of the struggle against militant Communism in Malaya represents His Majesty's Government's policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I expect that my right hon. Friend desired to make it clear that without more rapid progress in operations against the Communists, progress in other ways is bound to be slower and more difficult.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has cast aside his previous objections to the independence of countries in South-East Asia, and that he now understands that it will be impossible to gain the sympathy and support of the people who live in Malaya in the fight against Communism unless they are convinced that his Administration is going to press forward with their self-government as quickly as did the previous Labour Administration?

The Prime Minister: I have no declaration to make on these subjects this afternoon.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In order to avoid any misunderstanding which might have serious political repercussions, and have an effect upon the emergency, will the right hon. Gentleman re-affirm that the policy of His Majesty's Government now is the policy announced by my right hon. Friend in 1946 or 1947 that it is our intention to help the people in Malaya to self-government within the Commonwealth as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: That certainly seems a very inoffensive way of stating general truths and purposes which are now accepted widely in this country.

Mr. Griffiths: I want to press this matter. It is of very great importance. That policy was stated by my right hon. Friend. It was repeated on behalf of His Majesty's Government by myself both here and in Malaya. May I ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government now stand by that policy?

The Prime Minister: I do not propose myself to be drawn into a detailed dis-


cussion on the matter at Question time. I am myself awaiting the return of the Secretary of State from his mission, and then we shall have an opportunity of considering all that he has to say, and everything may be discussed in this House. I was not aware of any decisive change that had been contemplated at all in this respect, though I should by no means bind myself always to follow out strictly and faithfully all the actions and policies proposed by the party opposite.

Mr. Griffiths: Do I gather from the Prime Minister's statement that it is his intention and the intention of the Government to reconsider the policy already announced and re-affirmed several times? Do I gather that that has been reconsidered now?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring, I think, to procure some answer or some treatment of his Question here at Question time which would make mischief and cause trouble. I have not the slightest intention of being drawn into any pronouncement at present.

Mr. Attlee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that so far from there being any intention of making mischief, it is essential that the position of the Government should be made quite clear in view of the critical position of the fight against Communism in Malaya and the need for uniting all communities behind the Government, and that no statement casting doubt on the general line of policy, which, I thought, has been accepted in this House, should issue from this House? What my right hon. Friend was asking was that we may be quite clear that our purpose in defending Malaya against Communism is to help them on the road to self-government.

The Prime Minister: The last two phrases seem to me to be entirely harmless and even helpful.

Mr. J. Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Miss Burton.

Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

PRESS COUNCIL

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister what action has been taken arising out of the recommendation by the Royal Commission and the House of Commons that a Press Council be formed.

The Prime Minister: May I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on Wednesday, 28th November?

CABINET PAPERS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Frederick Peart: asked the Prime Minister what restrictions are placed on the use of Cabinet papers and Ministerial documents for the purpose of authorship and publication.

The Prime Minister: Former Ministers may at any time have access to Cabinet papers issued to them while they were in office, but no disclosure of the proceedings of the Cabinet may be made without the permission of the King. In view of the provisions of the copyright and the official secrets Acts, no disclosure of other official documents must be made without prior consultation with the Government of the day.

Mr. Pearl: Is the Prime Minister aware that the son-in-law of George Lansbury has experienced considerable difficulty in getting back papers which he sent, and in view of the importance of this, could the Prime Minister say what is the position with regard to papers which are not of a secret character?

The Prime Minister: That is a specific case, and I think I should like to have notice of that.

Mr. Peart: Would the Prime Minister re-consider this case of Mr. Raymond Postgate, in view of that assurance?

The Prime Minister: When my attention has been drawn to the case and I have been able to look into the matter, I will see if there is any occasion to reconsider it.

OVERSEAS FORCES (MAIL)

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Defence if he will grant the concession of including letters in second-class air mail packets posted to His Majesty's Forces outside Europe.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. If a letter is included in a second-class packet it becomes first-class mail, and under international agreement is liable to the postage rate for a letter. The hon. Lady is, however, aware that letters can be sent separately at very favourable concession rates for the Forces overseas.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that letters sent to people who are far away mean a great deal to them? In spite of international agreements, would the right hon. Gentleman, who I know wishes to help, have another look at this matter in view of the fact that it costs a great deal of money to send printed papers to our Forces outside Europe?

Mr. Head: I am aware of the hon. Lady's interest in mails—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—but I would point out that this suggestion that she has made would, in effect, defeat the object for which she is striving, because to put a letter into a second-class packet doubles the price of it, whereas if the letter goes by itself it costs only 2½d.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is replying on behalf of the three Services? If so, does that mean that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as Minister of Defence, has washed his hands of all details?

The Prime Minister: I thought that on a matter of this kind I might well devolve some of my burdens.

Mr. George Sylvester: Would the Secretary of State look into this matter again, because he may be aware that I have drawn the attention of the Under-Secretary to the case of a constituent of mine who last Saturday had to pay £2 2s. 6d. to send a 2½ 1b. parcel to a boy of 19 in Malaya?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Gentleman will send particulars I will certainly look into them.

Mr. Sylvester: I have already done so. I have told the Under-Secretary about it.

Miss Burton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—if I may include him among the males in whom I have an interest—if he would, during the Christmas Recess, look at this matter in general, because many people in this country are having to pay very large sums, quite legitimately I realise, on parcels sent to them by their soldier sons overseas. It is really a large matter, and if we send him details will he sympathetically look at the matter again?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Lady will send the details I can assure her that they will be looked into.

.280 RIFLE

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WYATT: —TO ask the Minister of Defence whether, before coming to a decision as to the future of the.280 rifle, he will satisfy himself that there is a better rifle available or in process of design which could be issued to British troops before the.280 rifle could be manufactured in large quantities.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. The Prime Minister has said that he will make a statement on the.280 rifle before the Christmas Recess. I have a Question No. 50 on the Order Paper giving an opportunity and, unless the Prime Minister makes a statement today, he will not be able to do so before the Christmas Recess.

The Prime Minister: On that point of order, may I say that I propose to deal with this matter, among others, tomorrow in my speech?

ROAD ACCIDENT, GILLINGHAM (INQUIRY)

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: (by Private Notice), asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a serious accident which occurred at Chatham last night when 23 cadets were killed and others seriously injured. Whether it is his intention to hold a public inquiry into the matter and whether he has any report to make on it meanwhile.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): Yes, Sir. I was greatly shocked to hear of this terrible accident and I would like to express my deep sympathy and I am sure that of the House with the relatives of the boys killed and injured as well as with the injured boys themselves. A message of sympathy has also been sent by the Admiralty. I propose to use my powers under Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to hold an inquiry as quickly as possible into the accident. Meanwhile I do not think that it would be advisable for me to make any further comment.

Mr. Bottomley: While thanking the Minister for expressing sympathy on behalf of the Government, sympathy which I am sure is shared by the whole House, may I ask him to speed up the inquiry, in order to assist in alleviating the concern of the constituents of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and myself?

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, as Minister of Defence, whether orders could be given that in all movements of troops lights should be carried in the rear of the column, which I think was done in the war?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly see that that matter is attended to.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Is the Minister aware that this tragic accident occurred in the Borough of Gillingham and not in Chatham, as was indicated in the Press and on the radio, and does not he think that at this stage it would be in the best interests of all concerned if this matter was left until after the inquest, until the police have completed their inquiries?

Mr. Maclay: I am aware, of course, that the accident took place in the Borough of Gillingham, but I have stated already that I propose to use my powers under the Road Traffic Act and the inquiry will have to be held as quickly as possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are to have a public inquiry into this.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (No. I) BILL

"to raise the limit on the interest in the shares of a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, which any one member may hold and to alter the conditions subject to which such a society may accept deposits without being treated as carrying on the business of banking," presented by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter; supported by Major Sir Thomas Dugdale and Mr. Snadden; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS

DEFAMATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to amend the law relating to libel and slander," presented by Mr. Harold Lever; supported by Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. Paget, Mr. Foot, Mr. Royle, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, Mr. Leslie Lever, Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. Weitzman, Mr. Bing and Mr. Scholefield Allen; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st February, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to amend the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Norman Cole; supported by Mr. John Hay, Viscountess Davidson, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Miss Ward and Mr. Barber; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th February, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

CROWN LESSEES (PROTECTION OF SUB-TENANTS) BILL

"to abolish the exemption of a landlord from certain enactments which arises by reason of the subsistence in his land of a superior interest belonging to the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall," presented by Sir Austin Hudson; supported by Mr. Steward, Mr. Reeves, Mr. Henry Price, Sir Leslie Plummer and Mr. R. C. D. Jenkins; read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th February, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

HEATING APPLIANCES (FIREGUARDS) BILL

"to prohibit the sale of certain heating appliances without an effective fireguard; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Bullard; supported by Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Marquand, Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing, Mr. Proctor, Commander Scott-Miller and Mr. West; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

INTESTATES' ESTATES BILL

"to amend the law of England and Wales about the property of persons dying in-testate; to amend the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938; and for purposes connected therewith." presented by Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth; supported by Sir Patrick Spens, Mr. Hylton-Foster, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. Basil Nield, Mr. Higgs and Mr. Gage; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th March and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL

"to remove certain legal disabilities of women," presented by Dr. Summerskill; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to amend section eighty-eight of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, with regard to the use of motor vehicles for conveying electors to the poll," presented by Brigadier Rayner; supported by Mr. Touche, Mr. Erroll, Mr. Dodds-Parker, Sir Herbert Williams and Major Guy Lloyd; read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th February, and to be printed, [Bill 27.]

AFFILIATION ORDERS BILL

"to amend the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, by increasing to thirty Shillings the maximum weekly payment in respect of a child under an affiliation order, and, in the case of a child engaged in a course of education or training, to extend until the child reaches the age of twenty-one the period for which under that Act payments may be continued under an affiliation order or for which under the Illegitimate Children (Scotland)

Act, 1930, the parents are under obligation to provide aliment; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Crouch; supported by Mr. Gage, Mr. Geoffrey Wilson, Mr. Burden, Mr. Ede, Dr. Barnett Stross, Captain Richard Stanley, Mr. Mitchison, Mrs. Freda Corbet, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Turner and Colonel Gomme-Duncan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th February, and to be printed, [Bill 28.]

COMPANIES BILL

"to amend the Companies Act, 1948, so as to permit the issue of stock and shares of no par value and to permit the conversion of authorised stock and shares into shares of no par value," presented by Sir John Barlow; supported by Mr. John Arbuthnot, Mr. Erroll, Mr. Odey, Mr. Maudling and Sir Patrick Spens; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th February, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

Loss OF EMPLOYMENT (COMPENSATION) BILL

"to provide for the payment of compensation for loss of employment after long service," presented by Mr. H. Hynd; supported by Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Lindgren, Mr. Percy Morris, Mr. Mulley, Mr. George Rogers, Mr. Viant and Mr. Wallace; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

HOUSING (TEMPORARY PROHIBITION OF SALE OF SMALL HOUSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to prohibit the sale of certain small houses in Scotland, to authorise the compulsory taking on lease by local authorities of such houses, and to make provision for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid," presented by Mr. Steele; supported by Mr. Thomas Fraser, Mr. Hubbard, Mr. McInnes, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Hannan and Mr. Hoy; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th March, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BILL

"to establish throughout the United Kingdom and the non-self-governing Colonies and Protectorates a standard of Human Rights and Freedoms applicable


to all His Majesty's subjects without distinction of race, colour, sex, language, religion, birth or other status," presented by Mr. Fenner Brockway; supported by Mr. Leslie Hale, Sir Richard Acland, Mr. Sorensen, Mrs. Eirene White, Mr. Foot, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Awbery, Mr. Harold Davies, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Donnelly and Mr. James Hudson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL

"to increase the maximum amounts prescribed by the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, for the share holding of a member of a registered society and for deposit facilities," presented by Mr. W. T. Williams; supported by Mr. Barnes, Mr. Coldrick, Mr. Daines, Mr. Irving, Mr. Beswick, Mr. Norman Smith, Mr. John Rankin. Mr. Dodds, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. Holman and Mr. Fred Longden; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 33]

HYPNOTISM BILL

"to make illegal the demonstration of hypnotic phenomena for purposes of public entertainment," presented by Mr. Hastings; supported by Dr. Santo Jeger, Dr. Summerskill, Dr. Barnett Stross, Mr. Baird and Dr. Morgan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (TIED HOUSES) BILL

"to amend the law relating to licensed premises; to abolish the tied house; to protect licensees against covenants restricting their rights to buy intoxicating liquor, food and commodities of their trade from brewers, distillers and merchants of their own choice; to prevent monopoly and restrictive practices in the liquor trade and in the trades ancillary thereto; to enable persons to purchase and consume in any licensed premises beverages and other refreshment of their own choice; to amend the Rent Restriction Acts in so far as they apply to licensed premises; to provide security of tenure for licensees; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by

Mr. Bing; supported by Mr. Harold Wilson, Mr. McGhee, Mr. John Freeman, Mr. Foot, Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. Delargy, Mr. Paget and Mr. Sydney Silverman; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th March, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

DIRECTORS, &C., BURDEN OF PROOF BILL

"to modify certain enactments relating to the burden of proof in criminal proceedings against directors and certain officers of bodies corporate," presented by Mr. Erroll; supported by Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson, Mr. Renton, Mr. Walker-Smith, Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Maudling, Sir John Barlow, Lord John Hope, Mr. Spence, Dr. Reginald Bennett and Sir William Darling; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th February and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

LANCASTER PALATINE COURT BILL

"to extend to the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster certain of the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act, 1925," presented by Mr. Philip Bell; supported by Mr. Basil Nield, Mr. Harold Lever and Mr. Sidney Marshall; read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

BANK HOLIDAYS (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to change the date of the Bank Holiday now fixed for the first Monday in August," presented by Mr. Keeling; supported by Mr. Cocks, Mr. Edward Evans and Mr. Roland Robinson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th February, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to amend the Riding Establishments Act, 1939; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Graeme Finlay; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood, Colonel Ralph Clarke, Mr. Russell, Mr. Doughty, Mr. P. J. M. Thomas, Mr. E. L. Mallalieu and Mr. Philips Price; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st February, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

COCKFIGHTING BILL

"to make it unlawful to have possession of any domestic fowl prepared for use in fighting or of any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for use in connection


with the fighting of a domestic fowl," presented by Mr. Sidney Marshall; supported by Mr. Frederic Harris, Mr. Dodds-Parker, Brigadier Peto, Mr. Gerald Williams, Sir William Darling, Mr. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Jocelyn Lucas and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES, &c.), BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd December],"That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

3.39 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: When this debate was adjourned I had very nearly come to the conclusion of the remarks I wished to address to the House. I had in my observations outlined in general the reasons which commended to me the Bill proposed by the Government, and for which I hoped that it would receive a Second Reading.
I will simply state in summary form that those reasons are the very important responsibilities resting on the shoulders of the judges and magistrates who form the principal topic of the Bill before the House; the very great importance of making the offices they hold sufficiently attractive always to bring to them the very best talent available; and finally, the change in the value of money and the circumstances generally since their salaries were last fixed before the war.
For those reasons it has seemed, to me at any rate, that the changes the Government propose are desirable changes. They are indeed, as I have already said, and as the Attorney-General said last time, changes which the late Government themselves had proposed to introduce. For these reasons I hope that the House will be ready to give the Bill a Second Reading.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), as the principal spokesman for the Opposition in this matter, has supported the general principle of this Bill, which, I hope, will not be in dispute in any part of the House. I think that all who have given any thought to the problem are fully satisfied that the county court judges and magistrates today, having regard to the decreased value of money, have a very strong case for an increase in their salary rates. That was very rightly understood by the preceding Government, who took the initial steps


for preparing this Bill; the Bill is, in fact, only carrying out the undertaking which was given by the preceding Government.
If I had any comment to make at all upon the amount of the increases it would be that it does not really go far enough. Both the county court judges and the London magistrates are, in my view, still underpaid, even at these new rates. I very much doubt whether, unless further increases are made before very long, these payments will continue to attract the right kind of man who is needed for this very difficult job. I hope that there will be no opposition to this Bill merely on the score that it is dealing with people whose salaries are in the four-figure category.
During the speech of the Attorney-General one hon. Member opposite—I think it was the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith)—interjected once or twice, without even rising from his place, "What about the engineers?" I am one who is anxious to see a high wages policy for all classes of the community, but I think that it would be difficult to establish that there is any engineer who has not had a rise in the last 50 years or so, which is the position of the people we are considering today.
The particular matter to which I want to draw the attention of the House is the differentiation which takes place now for the first time between the salaries to be paid to the county court judges and the salaries to be paid to the Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. In the past these two classes of appointments have always carried, so far back as the records go, I think, the same salary. They were increased sometime in the 1930's, and, at that time, both received exactly the same rate; so that they have always been equated. Now, for the first time, an entirely new principle is being introduced to distinguish between the county court judges and the London stipendiary magistrates.
The stipendiary magistrates, of course, are bound to accept the position because, naturally, they are not going to oppose the Bill, and they do not wish it to be opposed. They do feel, however, that they are entitled to make their protest that, for the first time, this distinction is being drawn. Whereas at present the

county court judges and the stipendiary magistrates receive £2,000 a year, the increases made in this Bill have the effect of putting the county court judges up to £2,800 and the stipendiary magistrates up only to £2,500, making a difference of £300 between them.
It is not, I think, so much the amount that the stipendiary magistrates object to, because, after all, when we have taken Income Tax and Surtax into account the actual amount of the difference between the two of £300 a year really makes very little difference between them; but they do feel strongly that they ought to set on record their protest against the differentiation in status which is being made, and I think the House ought—

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make this clear? Is he speaking officially on behalf of the Stipendiary Magistrates' Association, at their request?

Mr. Marlowe: No, certainly not.

Mr. Hale: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman had official representations from them? Or is he expressing his own view in trying to—

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we speak our own views on our own initiative, and that we are not briefed to speak on behalf of any particular body. I am speaking what I know to be in the minds of many Metropolitan magistrates—

Mr. Hale: How?

Mr. Marlowe: I should not dream, if the hon. Gentleman came here on a Bill which affected his profession—concerning the Law Society, say—of asking him whether he was instructed by the Law Society to speak on its behalf. I shall assume that he was setting forth his own views, as he would be perfectly entitled to do. I am setting out what I believe to be the view of many of the magistrates; and even if this is not their view, it is my view, that there is no case for making this differentiation at this stage.
I was dealing with the question—before I was interrupted by that irrelevant interruption—of what was the value of the difference between these two rates of salary, and I was pointing out that the actual amount involved is negligible to


the person who receives it, but that the principle is important. I want just for a moment to examine the case of whether there is any justification for it.
If there were anything to be said about the difficulties of the tasks I should have thought that the work of the London stipendiary magistrate was more difficult and more onerous than that of the average county court judge. It is impossible to make any sweeping comparisons because the work of the county court judges varies enormously in different parts of the country. It is far heavier in the industrial towns than it is the country circuits. However, county court judges have much more orderly lists, for instance, than the Metropolitan magistrate has. The Metropolitan magistrate may be faced at any time with a very difficult problem involving always the liberty of the subject. He is faced with criminal charges. He has a far more extensive and varied list in a day than the average county court judge does, and he receives less assistance in the discharge of his duties.
In many cases the county courts are conducted with the help of advocates, barristers or solicitors, which does, of course, considerably lighten the work of the judges. The average Metropolitan magistrate's case is taken without any assistance of advocates at all, and I think it is a very considerable burden which is placed on him.
I want also to consider whether the total amount involved is really worth making this distinction. There are 26 stipendiary magistrates in London, so the difference of £300 a year gives a difference, I think, of about £7,800 a year gross. Assuming that there is no private income at all, then of that amount some £4,600 would go back in tax, so that the total yearly cost to the country of maintaining the principle that these two are equivalent, as they have always been before, would be about £2,000. I suggest that it is not worth doing. It is not worth trying to establish this new principle, that there is a difference in status between the two, at a net expense of some £2,000 a year to the country
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal. There are references in the Bill to judges of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland and of Scotland. Unfortunately, there is no reference whatever

to the judges of the Supreme Court of England. I would submit that this is a suitable opportunity for remedying a long-standing injustice, and this opportunity ought to be taken to increase the salaries of the High Court judges. I know, of course, that it is not easy to argue the case of a man in receipt of a gross amount of £5,000 a year.
But, as the House well knows, there has always been a perfectly good reason for paying High Court judges on a high salary scale and, by modern standards, they are no longer on a high salary scale. They are, after taxation, on an extremely low scale. In their case there has been no change in the salary scale since 1831. I think that there is probably no other class of people in the country who have remained on the same scale without an alteration for 120 years.
Having regard to the tasks which they have to undertake and the responsibilities which fall upon them, and having regard to the necessity for keeping them free from financial worry and of preserving the high position which they occupy, I submit that there is a very strong case for an increase in the salary of the High Court judges. Indeed, I think that it is a pity that this opportunity has not been taken to give an increase.
I have nothing further to say on the Bill, which, I hope, in general principle is agreed in all quarters of the House, but I hope that at the earliest possible opportunity consideration will be given particularly to the question of the differentiation between the county court judges and the stipendiary magistrates. Although, as I have said, the amount involved to the individual is not of great importance, it does make a considerable difference when it comes to the assessment of pensions, and it will now mean that the stipendiary magistrate will receive considerably less pension than the county court judge to whom he has always previously been considered the equivalent. I hope that at some time proper consideration will be given to these matters.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I wonder if we can get one point clear in the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). Is he suggesting that the pay of the chief Metropolitan magistrate should be higher than that of a county court judge, or is he suggesting that the salary of the chief


Metropolitan magistrate should be the same as the rest of the Metropolitan magistrates?

Mr. Marlowe: I suggest that the principle should be the same as before—that county court judges and stipendiary magistrates should receive the same, and the chief magistrate receive something more. I say that that principle should be maintained.

3.54 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I was a little surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), like the Attorney-General, should have expressed the belief that there might be a large amount of opposition in this House to the Bill. I do not think that there is: in fact, I am sure there is not.
The hon. and learned Gentleman took upon himself to mention my colleague the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who made an interjection, "What about the engineers'?" I think it is right, as my hon. Friend is not in his seat, if I say on his behalf that I know that he has no objection in principle to the Bill, and that the fact that he interjected some reference to engineers and their salaries should not be interpreted as an objection on his part to justice being done to other classes of society. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that the three Members for Stoke-on-Trent always have one mind on all, or nearly all, subjects.
The Attorney-General, too, I think, was somewhat responsible for creating unease on this side of the House by the way in which he presented the Bill. He seemed to expect something which I am sure is not here. I am sure that it is the unanimous feeling in the country, as well as in the House, that justice should be done to the citizens whom we choose for these positions of very great trust and responsibility. I am not a lawyer, and, therefore, I have the right perhaps to speak more broadly than a lawyer would do on this subject. I can, however, speak as a layman with some knowledge of the courts, and I say that the public expect certain attributes from magistrates and county court judges.
We expect them to be absolutely incorruptible; we expect them to show the greatest courtesy to those who enter their

courts—a courtesy to those in distress—because people, innocent or guilty, often show marked distress and nervousness when they go into court. Lawyers and medical witnesses accustomed to the courts sometimes tend to forget what a terrifying ordeal this is to some people. Perhaps I may mention a county court judge who is no longer alive, Judge Ruegg, who used to practise in North Staffordshire, and who had a great reputation. Heaven help any counsel who appeared before him and who thought that he might be clever at the expense of an ill-dressed, impoverished man or woman who came before the court. His courtesy and kindness to those who needed help was something which I shall never forget and which has always been an inspiration to me.
Further, we ask for immense knowledge and experience from our magistrates and county court judges. We heard, in the introduction of the Bill, that often they have not learned counsel to assist them, and it is astonishing what a very wide authority and range of knowledge they possess, and how promptly they can use it. Another thing that we expect from them is an intimate knowledge of all types of problems that affect all classes of society, and, lastly, we ask from them that, as well as interpreting the law, they should show pity where pity is needed, as I am sure they do.
If this is what we require from one person, be it magistrate or county court judge, I do not think that we should begrudge the cost of a little financial security to them. That cost will never be begrudged by the average working man in this country, or any one in any sphere of life. I know that they use the courts on many occasions and in many ways, particularly when they have been injured at work, and from a long personal experience in the area from which I come, I know that they very frequently, if not always, got redress.
On Clause 1 (4) of the Bill, I should like to ask the Lord Advocate a few questions about stipendiary magistrates in the provinces. I gathered from the Attorney-General that the Secretary of State, under Section 32 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, will give directions in reference to salary changes, and he told us in answer to a Question from myself and from a former Secretary of


State for the Home Department that the salaries would be £2,000 to £2,500 for the 15 stipendiary magistrates in the provinces. Why this disparity? It does not seem to me to be reasonable.
I think that it has grown up out of archaic interests and traditions in the areas involved; but cannot we alter it now, and make the whole system more reasonable? Why, for argument, should a magistrate in Birmingham have a larger salary than one in Salford. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I did not want to quote my own area, but I am glad that I am receiving support from my own Front Bench. The work in a small city is not necessarily less arduous than in a large one.
In a city the size of Birmingham, there is a tendency for magistrates to be supported by a number of lay magistrates who help to share the work. If one looks at some of these courts one finds that the magistrates often finish at lunchtime, but, because custom and tradition makes it a large authority, there is a demand for an association between the salary of the stipendiary magistrate and the salary paid to those who serve the authority in other spheres like the town clerk or the finance officer. There is a link between the salaries paid to the stipendiary and the other officials of the local authority. I am not sure that this is reasonable or fair.
The sittings are just as numerous in a smaller city as in a larger one, the hours will not be shorter and—this, I think, is an important point—stipendiaries are all drawn from one class. Certainly, in the Midlands area I have in mind at the moment there are three magistrates who come from the same circuit. They are men of exactly the same pattern, and we are asking for the very best type of men to enter the service.
We do not want the men to feel that perhaps this will be an easier job or that they can take it on because they have not been successful in the cut and thrust of work at the Bar. The purpose of this Bill is to get the best, and I do not think it is going far enough for the provinces. It seems that as things are now, the accident of geography and circuit alone decides what salary the stipendiary is to

get and whether, in future, it is to be £2,000 or £2,500.
There is another point I should like to put, and I hope the Lord Advocate will answer this when the debate ends. As things are now, with the differentiation of salaries for these posts in the provinces it means that a young man may start with a larger authority at a larger salary than the, man who has done years of work and who has had great experience but is attached to a smaller authority. One will start at £2,500 a year and the other will get £2,000. It must also be remembered that there is no question of moving on, no progression or advancement. Once a magistrate accepts the post there he stays. This seems to me a very good reason for a reconsideration of the whole subject, and as the matter is to be controlled by Regulation there is obviously plenty of time for second thoughts on this issue.
There is a further point. Everybody in the provinces interested in the matter wants to know if it is true that we pay twice. Is it a fact that we pay towards the upkeep of the Metropolitan magistrates through general taxation and again through our local rates for the upkeep of the office of the local stipendiary? If we do it makes our claim the stronger. I speak on behalf of 15 magistrates in asking that the whole subject should be looked at once more to see whether we cannot get a similar financial status for people who are obviously drawn from the same class, have the same experience and who are debarred from enjoying the larger scale only by the, accident of geography and circuit.
Lastly, in this country where the standard of justice is so high—it is without a peer in the world—I do not think we should ever complain about the payment of a suitable amount to these men who carry such a great responsibility. The German Chancellor, in this building yesterday, made a very flattering statement about the quality of British justice and law, and how it was responsible for the existence through the centuries of the British Commonwealth. I agree, and it made me think when I got up to speak today that these men, on whom devolve the carrying out of the laws made in this Chamber and in another place, should never be begrudged what we can reasonably give them.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I am glad to be following the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), because I agree very much with him in hoping that the Home Secretary will always keep an attentive eye on the salaries of the lower range of provincial stipendiary magistrates. I hope it is in no sense a criticism of justice to say that it is certainly no less important to see that a man is kept independent in every way when he works in a rather smaller community in administering justice.
However, I think that if the hon. Member were to look at the variation in duties between these 15 provincial stipendiary magistrates, he would find that any kind of a flat tariff would be an injustice in itself, partly owing to the fact that in some communities the lay magistrates are much more anxious than in others to relieve the stipendiary magistrate of his duties. They like doing it.
I did not intend to intervene in the debate at all, but I want to deal with the one point of criticism which seems to arise on both sides of the House, and which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). For my part, I think it would be the greatest pity if anyone outside the House were to get the impression that the distinction between magistrates, particularly the London stipendiary magistrates, and county court judges had anything to do with status. It has none.
Nobody is saying that the stipendiary magistrates were not capable of doing the divorce work which, in fact, the county court judges were called upon to do. But it is the county court judges and not the Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates who are commuting by giving up what they have been getting in divorce court earnings in order to balance their increase of salary. That has nothing to do with status, and no one can think so, because the stipendiary magistrates in London are entrusted with most important duties in connection with matrimonial work.
In the year ended 31st March last they dealt with matrimonial payments to the tune of something over half a million pounds. They are given most responsible matrimonial duties to do, and I feel sure that those who hold the views that my hon. and learned Friend says they

do would not begrudge anybody the extra remuneration for the burdensome and tiresome duty of listening with an extremely alert mind to monotonous volumes of evidence about other people's matrimonial infidelities. It is a judicial task which deserves extra remuneration.
Nor would it be right, apart from what my hon. and learned Friend has said, to make a comparison between the work done by these gentlemen. If it is to be said that the stipendiary magistrate's court in London gives him more work and a busier task than the county court judge, then I feel obliged, in return, to indicate to the House some of the dreadful things that happen to county court judges. They inherit, almost by accident, the task of deciding cases on the most tiresome legislation that this House has ever devised. No sooner do they get rid of workmen's compensation than they are plunged into rent restrictions, landlord and tenant, and every sort of horror of that kind.
They do not stay still. They do not have the honour of going to relatively few courts like the stipendiary magistrates in the metropolis do. Many do not boast of a motor car. Hon. Members who have suffered personal agonies while listening to other hon. Members talking out the last train may sympathise with a judge who has to listen to litigants talking out his last train when he is travelling around the country in all kinds of weather.
On Monday I was listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), whom I regret to see is here not at this moment. [Laughter.] It was reluctance which dragged my negative out at such a late stage. I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupt the former Attorney-General, letting the burnings of his heart override his sense of relevance, when he was talking about the salaries being paid to judges' clerks and was forced to recall that the county court judge is not allowed a clerk at all, not even a clerk with an inadequate salary. He has to drag his own books about with him, and live often on a diet of sandwiches.
As for the buildings in which he works, some of them are very good, but I cannot help recalling the county court judge who told me that the first time he went on circuit he did not know the way to his


court. At the station he took a taxi and the taxi-driver got him there all right. Arriving at the building he said, "Here we are; here is the chamber of horrors." That certainly did not relate to the quality of justice; it related to the building in which it was administered.
I refer only to these matters in case some comparison is to be made between the arduous element in the duties of those holding judicial office. My belief is that these increases are long overdue, are abundantly justified, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I should like to say straight away that I am in entire agreement with the provisions of this Bill. Stipendiary magistrates are entitled to have a substantial and proper salary, for the position that they hold in the administration of justice in this country is one which is almost unique in the world. Those of us who have had experience of the courts, as I have had for some 30 years now, always feel that it is highly important that they should be relieved of any unnecessary strain in the matter of their financial status and affairs.
Particularly today there has been a tremendous responsibility placed upon the shoulders of the stipendiary magistrates, and it seems a little odd that an attempt should be made to differentiate between the county court judges and the stipendiary magistrates on the question of salary. It is all very well saying that that does not affect the status as between the two persons concerned but, in fact, it does. What actually happens is that it is natural to expect a person who desires an appointment to take the better appointment because of the finance offered. Nobody will gainsay that, and no one will deny the right of a barrister to decide that the appointment he accepts should be the one with the higher salary. That in itself creates the difficulty which the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) was speaking about.
There is a limited number of persons from whom stipendiaries and judges can be chosen. Stipendiaries, in my experience, have to be strong physically, capable of standing a very great strain in the courts, particularly in London. I sympathise, of course, with the point of

view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), having seen stipendiary magistrates at work in the provinces and in one city, Cardiff, for something like 12 years. The stipendiary magistrates whom I knew had an extremely difficult job. I am not at all sure that in many cases they are not entitled to a similar salary to those sitting on the London bench.
Not all cases come within that category, because, as the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) said, there are some districts in which the stipendiaries have not got quite as much to do as in others. I do not know whether the House realises that stipendiaries' courts are sitting practically the whole year, with the exception of only about two or three days, Bank holidays included. The stipendiaries sit from about 10 in the morning until about six, and have to consider in their so-called leisure time points of law or other matters that come before the courts in the course of the day.
I urge that the difference which is being introduced into the Bill should be removed, if at all possible. There is the question whether a man, considering his own status, is guided by the salary which is offered for an appointment. Why not? Is it not obvious that if one man is receiving a higher salary than another who is performing the same duties he may consider himself as occupying a higher position than the other man? He would be legitimately entitled to come to that conclusion.
Reference has been made to stipendiaries in relation to divorce. As has been rightly said, the stipendiary is just as capable of taking divorce cases as any judge in the county court. I am not casting any slur upon the county court judge. Far be it from me to do that, but, taking other things as being equal, the stipendiary is a man with equal knowledge and ability. The fact that stipendiaries do not get divorce cases is not due to any idea that they cannot do them, but to the hours which they spend on the other work that comes before their courts.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede (South Shields) indicated dissent

Mr. Janner: I do not want to enter into controversy with my own Front Bench on this matter, but I speak with some experience of the courts.
I feel that the time involved in a judge's work, plus his divorce work, cannot be more than what he is capable of doing. The time spent by a stipendiary on his work cannot be extended, in most cases, certainly not in the metropolis. He could not do any more, even if he attempted to do it. The stipendiary has in his hands the character of the people who come before him. He has such important tasks as deciding whether he shall send a person to prison for the first time. The county court judge has not that power. If a magistrate has to decide whether he will exercise his right under the Probation of Offenders Act, instead of sending a man to prison and damaging his whole future career, his position is an extremely important one. Perhaps that is one of the most important things that come within the purview of stipendiary magistrates.
We are very proud of our system of justice in this country. To both the courts which we are discussing the ordinary person resorts in order to have his troubles properly attended to. The average man goes to the police court with no knowledge at all of its atmosphere. He has to be guided. The stipendiary magistrate conducts the case, and he has in his hands the destiny of the people who come before him, equally with a High Court Judge. In many instances, although the penalties are not as high, the actual effect on the individual, even where a small penalty is inflicted, is equally great. The character of the person and his liberty are at issue, just as much as in the case of the larger penalties when there is a hardened criminal to deal with.
In those circumstances, I hope that nobody in the House will oppose the Bill in general. The argument that, because some people whom we all want to see receiving higher salaries are not receiving them, those who administer justice in these two very important courts should not be given higher salaries, is not one that has been sustained. A man who comes before the court wants to feel that the person who is trying his case, whether in the county court or the magistrates' court, is receiving a substantial salary and has a high status. If any hon. Member

has made up his mind to proffer an argument against the Bill I hope that he will reconsider his position and will try to maintain the very great and important place that these two sets of courts have in the minds of the people, not only of this country but throughout the whole world.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: I believe that I am the first Member of the House to intervene in the debate who is not a member of the legal profession.

Mr. Hale: No. There was the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).

Mr. Black: I am sorry if I overlooked the one exception to the rule.
This discussion has largely been carried on by members of the legal profession. I was about to say, when I was interrupted, that it might be considered not unsuitable for me to make a few observations on this matter, because for a good many years I have been a lay justice in the Metropolitan area and can, therefore, claim to have some knowledge of and interest in the administration of justice in that area.
I feel quite unconvinced by the arguments that have so far been advanced in support of making a differentiation in salary for the first time between county court judges and Metropolitan magistrates. I am quite unable to accept the view that has been advanced by more than one hon. Member, that no question of status is involved in the differentiation. It seems to me that the question of status must follow inevitably upon the question of salary and that it is quite impossible, when we are making a differentiation in salary for the first time between two classes of people who for a century or more have received the same rate of salary, to say that we are not in any way affecting the status of the two classes of person concerned.
That seems an impossible proposition to advance. I do not think that the case has been made out in support of this differentiation, that divorce work is now undertaken by the county court judges and that they should, therefore receive a salary higher by £300 a year.
There are one or two considerations which have not been brought before the House on this point and which I feel


we ought to have in mind. The Attorney-General, in introducing the Bill, indicated that the £300 additional salary proposed to be given to county court judges in excess of the new scale proposed for Metropolitan magistrates represented approximately the average over a period of the additional earnings which the county court judges had enjoyed by reason of the additional fee which had been paid to them for divorce work.
It is not perhaps irrelevant to point out that to take an average based on a past period may be doing more than justice to the county court judges, because it is a fact that the number of divorce cases reached its peak in 1948—a very high peak, indeed—and that since 1948, providentially, the amount of divorce work which has been handled by the courts has been undergoing a steady diminution.
The figure based on the average of the fees paid for the divorce work undertaken in the past may be unduly generous, but if we concede that the county court judges are entitled to additional remuneration because of the divorce work which they now undertake, I would submit that additional work and additional responsibility of at least an equally important and equally onerous character have been undertaken in recent years by the Metropolitan magistrates. I refer particularly to the additional work and the vastly increased responsibility falling upon them by reason of the great range of economic laws which have come on to the Statute Book during the last 10 years, and with which those magistrates are very largely concerned in their administration of justice.
May I take only one case, which, at the time, attracted a great deal of public notice, to indicate the new type of case with which the Metropolitan magistrates are called upon to deal? Within the last year or two, before one of the Metropolitan courts, there was a very important case, which received a great deal of Press attention at the time, relating to diamonds. The case occupied four weeks before one of the Metropolitan magistrates. The maximum fine which could have been imposed was in the neighbourhood of £1¼;million; the actual fine imposed was £300,000. It is perhaps not entirely irrelevant to point out that a very eminent counsel was engaged in that case

on behalf of the defendants, as might have been expected in view of the large sums involved. I am reliably informed that the fee paid for that four weeks' attendance before the Metropolitan magistrate was at the rate of 1,500 guineas for each sitting day.
We therefore had the position of the Metropolitan magistrate who was trying the case being in receipt of £2,000 a year, while the counsel who appeared before him earned very nearly as much money for one day's work as the Metropolitan magistrate had to work for a year to earn.
Bearing in mind that the Metropolitan magistrates are now concerned with this type of case, which is really an addition to the kind of work which they have ordinarily undertaken in the past, I say that this is the worst time and the most unfair time to put them, so far as salary is concerned, into a relatively inferior position in comparison with county court judges.
I wish now to say a few words on the proposed new salaries to Metropolitan magistrates, looked at, not in comparison with the salaries of county court judges, but in isolation. From that standpoint it would seem that an increase of 25 per cent. on the pre-war salary is doing very much less than justice to the men concerned when regard is had to the general level of salaries paid today in comparable positions.
In the senior ranks of the Civil Service and local government the increase in salaries would be not less than 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. on an average over the whole range. The proposed increase so far as the Metropolitan magistrates are concerned is 25 per cent. If we come down to, for instance, clerks to justices courts, the average increase in their remuneration is, I am advised, not less than 50 per cent.

Mr. Hale: I understood that the hon. Member was speaking as a magistrate. Surely he knows that the whole position of clerks to the justices has been entirely altered and that the amounts they have to pay to their staff have greatly risen?

Mr. Black: I appreciate that point fully, but even allowing for that their net remuneration, according to the information available to me, shows an average increase of 50 per cent. over their pre-war net remuneration. That, I believe,


is a fair statement of the position. Obviously, it varies from clerk to clerk, but I think that is the average throughout the country.
If we refer to the National Income and Expenditure White Paper for 1950 the comparison for wages between 1938 and 1950 shows an increase of 158 per cent. and the comparison for salaries between the two years shows an increase of 129 per cent. In suggesting an increase of only 25 per cent., and bearing in mind the increased duties and responsibilities involved and the general increase in the whole wages and salaries scale throughout the country, it would seem that much less than justice is being done to Metropolitan magistrates.
Reference has already been made to the fact that in a very real and vital sense they are the custodians of the liberty of the subject; and it is important in the highest degree that their independence, their sense of responsibility and their qualifications should be of the highest. Over a long period of years this can be achieved only if we recognise the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I wish to intervene only to deal with a statement made by the Attorney-General when we were discussing this matter on 3rd December. Following an interruption by me, he said:
There are, I think,15 magistrates involved"—
that is to say, stipendiary magistrates in the provinces—
and their salaries range from £1,400 to £2,000 The proposal is that they would run from £2,000 to £2,500."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2166.]
The Home Secretary has the duty of dealing with the salaries of these stipendiary magistrates in the provinces, but he has to fix the salary after consultation with the local authority for the area in which the stipendiary magistrate serves. I think it would probably be rather harmful in the consultations if the local authorities thought that there had been some prior salary fixed by the Home Office and that they could operate only within that limited range.
I have no doubt that there is a desire that these consultations should be friendly and that as much as possible should be

done to bring the new salaries into a line proportionate with the Metropolitan magistrates, having regard to the old salary which has been paid to both. I hope it will be made clear that the consultations with the local authorities will be on a basis that has not been predetermined by any statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), said there was no promotion from one place to another so far as provincial stipendiary magistrates are concerned. When the appointment of a Metropolitan magistrate rested with me, as Home Secretary, I promoted—if that is the proper word—a provincial stipendiary magistrate to be a Metropolitan magistrate. I thought it would be a very good thing if it could be understood that when an appointment is made to the stipendiary magistracy in the provinces that does not necessarily represent the end of the man's career. There is a possibility that he may be moved from one place to another or absorbed into the Metropolitan magistracy. I am quite sure that would be a very good thing for the magistrates themselves. There is also the advantage from coming into the Metropolitan magistracy that he can get the superannuation which he does not always get as a stipendiary magistrate in the provinces.
I do not wish to follow the dissertation on the respective worth of Metropolitan magistrates and county court judges, but I would not accept the view that the public would be satisfied if a Metropolitan magistrate was regarded as a suitable person to act as Commissioner in respect of divorce cases. I am exceedingly perturbed at the tremendous number of divorce cases which there are. I know that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) is also perturbed, and I do not want to do anything which would make it appear that divorce is something even remotely related to what is popularly called police-court work. We do wish to make quite certain that divorce does not get into that category.
I hope that this Bill will have a Second Reading and an unobstructed passage through the House. I hope, also, that the negotiations between the Home Office and the various provincial authorities who have to deal with the salaries of provincial stipendiary magistrates may be


fruitful to the magistrates; and be conducted with the good will which does not always characterise such negotiations with regard to salaries.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that divorce work must not be handed over to stipendiary magistrates. Not that they are incapable of doing it, but because it would tend to cheapen divorce in the eyes of the public and bring it into contempt if it were a matter to be dealt with on the same status as a small motoring offence. It is a very serious matter, and should be kept within the jurisdiction where it is being dealt with at present. That is the reason why county court judges are being given this extra work and salary.
The basic salary of both stipendiary magistrates and county court judges must not be regarded as satisfactory at the present time. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) told us, in settling the salaries we have to consider that the gentlemen in question should have financial security. We also have to be certain that we are getting the best people for these appointments. All hon. Members will agree that we must have the best people in these judicial appointments. I am not at all satisfied that this rate of salary will provide for either of those criteria, and I hope that this Bill will be regarded only as an interim Measure, because it is not nearly wide enough in amount or extent.
The question of amount I have already dealt with: it deals with only two, although two very important, classes of the judiciary. There are many other classes as well—High Court judges, Official Referees, Masters of the High Court—who are not affected or touched in any way by the Bill. I hope that the House will not consider that by passing this Bill they have finished with the question of judicial salaries in the lifetime of this Parliament. I hope that in the near future we shall have a Bill covering a larger and wider range and dealing fairly with all those sections of very important people, important because they affect very much the every-day life and liberty of our people.
I wish to deal with one aspect of the Bill which has not so far been touched on. The county court judges are, very rightly, to receive an addition to their salary by reason of the fact that they are now conducting divorce work. But since the war the stipendiary magistrates have been doing an immensely increased amount of work as well. There have been an enormous number of Statutory Rules and Orders and delegated legislation, all of which is difficult to follow, and which make offences triable and punishable in the police court.
There has been an enormous increase in their matrimonial work by the increase in the weekly amounts they are able to award, and for that extra work they are receiving precisely nothing. If it is right, and it is that county court judges should have increased remuneration by reason of their increased work it is only right that stipendiary magistrates should also receive an increase in their salary in respect of their increased work.
I look upon this as a rather niggardly Bill. It does not go far enough in any direction. I am glad that it is to have an unopposed Second Reading which will mark the feeling of the House as to its virtue, but I hope that in the future we shall have a much wider measure affecting a larger section of the judiciary.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not know how the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), can know how matters are likely to rest at the end of the debate, and whether this Bill will be given an unopposed Second Reading or not. Certainly, I have no intention of opposing it.

Mr. Doughty: I said what I did because I thought that the Opposition Front Bench had indicated that there would be no Division. But if there is not agreement between the hon. Member and his Front Bench I will withdraw that statement and leave him to conclude his dispute with his own Front Bench.

Mr. Hale: An opinion from the Front Bench carries great weight and should be treated with the greatest possible respect. But it would be regrettable if we were to conduct a debate on something on which we had already come to a final conclusion; and, naturally, those of us without other engagements will wish to


hear what hon. Members on both sides of the House who have the privilege of catching your eye, Sir, have to say, and to pay due attention to that.
I do not wish to introduce a note of controversy into this matter, but about an hour and a quarter ago this Bill was about to sail calmly into harbour undisturbed, when the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), rose to give the benefit of his views to the House. I do not think he means it, but he never seems able to rise without introducing controversy, or to speak without excessive arrogance, or to give way without misrepresenting the purpose of the intervention. In the early stages of his observations, I made a fairly simple interruption, which, I thought, was on a matter about which the House should know. He said that the stipendiary magistrates say this or that and I asked if he was speaking for the organisation as such.
It is a perfectly proper thing for the Law Society to make representations to the solicitor Members of this House about legal matters and if I said that the Law Society said this or that I should be putting the case as it had been put to me as representing the Society. But my intervention was received with a great deal of discourtesy, so I listened with more attention to the words that followed.
Our general view of this matter is that, where the existing machinery has reached a decision on the question of income, the House should honour it. Our general view would be that men who occupy distinguished judicial positions should not be exposed to factious or unnecessary criticism and when a Bill of this kind has been negotiated after full consultation no one wants to oppose it. I rather regret the discourtesy of the hon. and learned Member for Hove. No doubt he will put down an Amendment on the Committee stage, because I am sure he would not have committed the House to an hour's discussion on matters which other people have described as unimportant if that were not so.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member will realise that there is a difference between Second Reading and Committee. I would put down an Amendment, but that would not be in order after the money Resolution has been discussed.

Mr. Hale: The Money Resolution seems to cover the possibility of some increase, because it refers to the matter in general and I think the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member will enable him to get over that and we shall be able to debate this matter in Committee, I hope at some length.
I want to make one protest about this matter. Whenever we speak in this House about distinguished surgeons, bishops, archbishops, or judges, a note of quite incredible sycophancy comes into our voices. I do not think there is a judge in the land who wants that. Most of those with whom I have served on committees are men of distinction, good sense and humour and capable of laughing at themselves and of being good fellows. I do not think they would like the House to keep talking of them in this way.
The hon. and learned Member for Hove made a most savage attack on the ethics of the profession to which he belongs. I do not believe it is true that members of the Bar, when offered High Court judgeships, refuse because they would lose money thereby. I know distinguished members of the Bar who are most anxious to fulfil any vacancy which arises and, if any vacancy arises in the future, I can assure the hon. and learned Member that there would be no lack of people who would be waiting to hear that the Lord Chancellor would like a word with them in the immediate future.
It is not true that very great ability is needed to become a High Court judge; in fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. Anyone who has read the lives of judges will know of occasions when the appointment has been a flagrant political job—when it was wanted to create a by-election. One Lord Chancellor explained that it would be better to put two incompetents on the bench than to let two straight voting Tory baronets go into the bankruptcy court. All these appointments have been enormous successes. [Laughter.] Yes, it is quite true.
I do not want to discuss the reputation of a judge who has passed away, but it was a common comment on Lord Darling that his appointment was regarded as a big political job, yet he was one of the most distinguished judges on the Bench. It is a common joke that some judges had to hand back both their


briefs at once on being appointed, yet one or two have been amazing successes and rendered yeoman service as High Court judges of distinction. What a judge wants first is a good deal of common sense, forbearance, love and understanding of human nature and a great deal of tolerance; and, of course, a first-class brain does not matter to that extent. The whole argument is vitiated by the fact that one or two High Court judges have been appointed from the county court bench. That has not happened enough and I would like to see it happen more often.
My experience is that the county court judge represents about the highest standards of judicial administration that we get anywhere. His is a rather more human court than the other courts, with their rarified atmosphere, can be. They are considering intimate human problems and are brought into touch with the sort of lives lived by the great majority of His Majesty's citizens, so there is a great deal of humanity behind the fairly ancient traditions of judicial probity. I believe that they represent a very high standard, and, if anyone wants them to have a higher salary, I would not oppose it.
The argument put forward today, which is a better argument, is that, after all, relative standards exist. If one is prepared to have a Socialist Government which says, "You should not have so much" we would have to have a wages policy which would embrace everyone from the cotton worker to the Lord Chancellor. But, until we do that, it would be indecent to introduce the poverty argument but base it on comparable forms of occupation. Unfortunately, the stipendiary magistrates have one of the worst types of court. It is no fault of theirs. The stipendiary magistrate has the same high standard of qualification and is drawn from the same class of people. Everyone knows that it is very much the chance of a vacancy whether a man becomes a stipendiary, or a county court judge.
I wish hon. Members would go into the courts of London and see the circumstances. They are grossly overworked and my view is that most of the stipendiaries would rather see six new stipendiaries appointed than have a small

taxable rise. We get the position in which 50 or 60 motoring cases are taken in 20 or 30 minutes. A policeman goes into the box and says, "John Jones, 25 miles an hour" and the fine is 10s., then "William Brown, 30 miles an hour," fined 15s. If there is a man with a burning sense of grievance, he is almost bound to be looked on with a certain amount of antagonism as a horrible crank who wishes to take up the time of the court. I do not think anyone who has practised in the courts of London will deny that this is true.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will find that many more London stipendiaries are anxious to get appointments in the country than there are country stipendiaries who wish to come to London. He would be surprised to find that that is also true of Birmingham, even though Birmingham is greatly overworked. There is a need for new appointments. It is almost impossible to argue a small case in the London stipendiary courts today without a feeling that one is doing one's client harm by antagonising the court. I do not say that in any critical way, but if hon. Members saw the conditions they would see that that is true.
One either has a heavy case with big counsel and special days are appointed and once that is done one may proceed with the discursiveness of, say, the Home Guard Bill, or the sort of case where a chap is advised to plead guilty and not to waste time and he is polished off in 10 seconds. There is hardly a chance of getting those spacious conditions of the unpaid magistrates' courts.
I am sorry that no one mentioned the unpaid magistrates, because they are very good. One hon. Member mentioned clerks to the justices, but that should not be allowed to go unchallenged because they completely altered their status. The tendency is for clerks to the justices to be full-time officers today in amalgamated courts so that there are no standards of comparison with the task when nearly always they were part-time officers. The unpaid magistrates' court today is a matter for admiration.
When the Bill dealing with judge's pensions was discussed I raised the question of the judge's clerk and other hon. Members raised it also. I rather think the Solicitor-General raised it, very properly,


and I know from correspondence I have had that this raised hopes in a number of breasts that something might be done. My recollection is that we got from my right hon. Friends a fairly clear undertaking that an early opportunity would be found to study the problem and to do something about it.
Judges' clerks are in a very special position as they have no pension of any kind. I think it may be said and often is said, that they have fairly high incomes. That may be said of most barristers, but it is a profession peculiarly liable to Income Tax and with very little hope of those little arrangements for entertainment allowances and so on, which are available to business generally, so there is not all that opportunity of saving. I think the judge's clerk is a very special case and I much regret that, after what was said some months ago, he has not been considered in this Bill. I hope that before this debate closes someone will say that he will be considered.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: This has been a very interesting discussion, especially the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to whom we always look to bring lightness, brightness and humour into any debate in which he takes part.
I believe that this Bill has been introduced at the most inopportune time. The first thing that happened when the party opposite were elected was that Ministers' salaries were cut and the number of Ministers' cars was reduced. Everyone thought that this Government would do nothing to increase public expenditure, but would take steps to reduce public expenditure. This Bill, admirable though it may be, will increase Government expenditure, not to a great extent, but, nevertheless, by over £70,000 a year. I think it should be looked at from the same point of view as the issue is looked at in regard to industrial workers and anyone else at the present time.
Normally, when industrial workers seek an increase it is asked whether there is a shortage of manpower in the industry or, if there is not a shortage, that is usually held as a reason against the increase. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there are plenty of people—and I know one or two—who would gladly fill one of these vacancies, if offered the

opportunity. Inasmuch as there is no shortage of applicants for this kind of appointment, I think that the introduction of the Bill at this time is, as I have said, inopportune.
I point out, particularly to the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), that whilst it may be true that engineers have had many increases in pay, all the increases they have had in the 20 years, to which the hon. and learned Member referred, plus their basic wage, still do not approximate to the increase which is to be given to the gentlemen covered by the Bill. The last increase for the engineers was less than £30 a year, as against the £500 and £800 increases represented by the Bill.
I should be the last to make any imputation against the ability, impartiality, competency and fairmindedness of our judges. I have never had to appear before one, and I hope that I never have to do so, but I think that they accomplish their duties in a most admirable way. But when it is seen in the Press that people already receiving £2,000 a year are to get another £500 or £800 a year, it is most difficult for those of us who have to deal with industrial workers to get them to exercise restraint in their demands. They feel that if everybody else is to have a good whack, they also are entitled to it. It is because, at this time in our history, the industrial and productive workers matter more than any other section of the community that we must have their good will and service more than those of anybody else if the country is to get through. I think, therefore, that the Bill might have been introduced at a more appropriate time.
One other feature of the Bill to which I take some objection is that it is retrospective in application. I well remember that when Sir Stafford Cripps wanted to make a certain piece of legislation retrospective with regard to Mr. Lord and Sir John Black, there was quite an outcry from the party opposite when they were in Opposition. They objected strongly to any attempt to give a retrospective effect to that particular legislation. Whatever else is said of it, the Bill is retrospective. For these reasons, therefore, despite the general unanimity towards the Bill, I think that it might have been deferred until we have overcome the economic crisis which now faces the nation and


until the time is more appropriate, when it could have had the blessing of everybody in the House.

Mr. Marlowe: I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the whole of my argument regarding retrospective legislation related to retrospective legislation of a penal character, to which I have always had objection. The Bill, of course, is not of a penal nature at all.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. John Wheatley: We have had a very full and interesting debate, but I do not think that we need apologise for taking up the time of the House on this subject in view of the very important part which those to whom the Bill relates play in our civic life. My one observation on this point is that when the Bill reaches the Statute Book, I trust that the increases in emoluments will not pursue the same course as this debate has taken and be paid out on the instalment system, because this is the fifth occasion on which we have tried to get the Bill through its Second Reading.
We on this side welcome the Bill. Although we cannot claim maternity in delivering it to the House, we cannot, nor would we wish to, dispute paternity in its conception, because it merely brings into operation certain arrangements made by the previous Government. While I rise specifically to deal with the Bill so far as it affects Scotland, there are one or two general observations which I should like to make.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), that we are justly proud of our system of law. There may be imperfections in its structure and deficiencies in the human personnel who administer it, but by and large—I speak both of Scotland and of England—we have a system of law and a body of judges of whom we are justifiably proud. Although we have the two systems—the English and the Scottish—my remarks apply equally to both. I make no attempt to differentiate between the one and the other so far as these general remarks are concerned, nor do I seek to express any views as to which of the two systems of law is the better. If I were to do so, I should undoubtedly be accused of prejudice.
With that high standard in the administration of our law, it must be our endeavour not only to attract the best possible men for the position but to see that they receive a remuneration consistent with their high responsibility. Those two aspects may, incidentally, be correlated, because we may not be able —and in this I differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—to attract the best possible men unless we make the remuneration reasonably equivalent to the responsibility which they carry, bearing in mind that we are attracting them away from another branch of the profession in which their remuneration may be reasonably high.
It is sometimes difficult, as those who have had the responsibility of nominating or appointing judges will know, to attract people away from a very lucrative practice in order to take a position on the Bench. In saying that, I do not ignore the question of prestige, which is a most important element. Many people, although they are making a large income in their practice at the Bar, have regard to the prestige involved in being appointed to a judicial position. By the same token, that prestige ought to be reflected in the remuneration which they receive.
In many cases, the net increases proposed in the Bill are not nearly so high as they first appear when the incidence of taxation is taken into account. I submit that it is wrong and harmful for our judges to be paid on a lower financial scale than many other people in the public service and in private industry. When we consider the position of people in the public service—in the Civil Service, in local authorities and in the nationalised industries, and the position of executives in private industries—and compare their salaries, emoluments and remunerations with those of the members of the Bench, it is clearly demonstrated that an increase in the pre-existing salaries of judges is well justified. Accordingly, no apology need be made for attempting to redress a position which the changing events of society have made anomalous so far as the members of the judiciary are concerned.
Following those general observations, I turn now to the provisions of the Bill which deal with Scotland. If I may speak


I hope, at not too great length on the position of Scotland, I trust that I may be excused, because I am the first Scottish Member to have spoken on the Bill, and, quite possibly, I may be the last. In view of the fact that I occupied the position of Lord Advocate and know intimately the position of the judges in Scotland and their salaries and claims, it would be less than fitting if I did not give the House the benefit of my views on these proposals.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with circuit expenses to be paid to the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary in Scotland. In 1887, the salaries of these judges were compounded or consolidated at £3,600 per annum, to include the circuit expenses which previously had been paid to them. The salaries have not been increased since 1887, and in the course of time the circuit expenses have become heavier. Accordingly, this particular aspect of reform is long overdue, quite apart from any increase in salary.
It has been a considerable drain on the resources of judges going on circuit in having to meet the circuit expenses out of their salaries and bearing in mind the higher salaries paid to the English High Court judges and the fact that they are, in addition, given circuit expenses, this is a reform which I should have been very glad to have introduced in other circumstances. I am for this reason pleased to have been associated with it at an earlier stage.
It is only right to point out to the House and to remind the Government that these circuit expenses, which have been offered, have been accepted—at any rate, the proposal has found itself acceptable to the judges of the Court of Session—without prejudice to their rights regarding further claims in relation to salaries. There is a difficult problem with regard to salaries, and if I may point out one particular aspect it is in relation to the claim for parity with the High Court judges in England. Therefore, in accepting the proposal that was made to them, the judges of the Court of Session made it clear that their acceptance was without prejudice to any claims they might have on this other topic.
I mention the question of parity because certain of the English Members who have addressed the House dealt with the question of parity as between the

stipendiary magistrates and the county court judges. In just the same way, the Chairman of the Land Court and the full-time sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute in Scotland have accepted the present increase without prejudice to their rights to pursue their claims, in relation to salaries, with particular reference to parity with the county court judges in England.
I should be less than frank and less than fair if anything I say today could be interpreted as a complaint that these matters to which I have referred have not been dealt with in the Bill. The proposals in the Bill were our own proposals. They are restricted to a certain group of judges, and the increases which have been made have been based on the pre-existing salaries and a uniform increase of £500. It would, however, be legitimate for me to ask the Solicitor-General, who, I understand, is to reply, to state the intentions of the Government in relation to this question of parity as between the Scottish judges and, roughly, their English counterparts.
In looking at this question, I trust that the Government will bear in mind the questions of status and prestige as well as the money which is involved, because these are matters of great importance, which might outweigh even the financial considerations which are under review. Before I leave Clause 2 (1) I should like to know from the Solicitor-General whether payment of circuit expenses will be made retrospective to 1st July, 1951, as in the case of salaries payable under Clause 1.
I appreciate that the Financial Resolution has been so drawn that if it is passed in its present form, it would be impossible to table an Amendment for the Committee stage to enable what I suggest to be done. I ask the Solicitor-General to look at this matter and at the Financial Resolution. At the appropriate time—I want to give notice of the fact—I propose to raise questions as to whether the Financial Resolution should be passed in its present form because it would exclude these payments being made retrospective to 1st July.
In the circumstances which I have disclosed, these payments should be forming part of the emoluments of the judges, and if the increases for English and Irish judges are to be ante-dated to 1st July last, there is no logical reason why these


additional emoluments to the Court of Session judges in Scotland should not similarly be ante-dated. If the only barrier against doing this is the way in which the Financial Resolution has been drawn up, I earnestly solicit the Government to take away this Financial Resolution and to bring back one which will enable justice to be done to the judges in Scotland. [Laughter.] I am glad that I am getting support for that proposal from the Government benches from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) and the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison).

Sir William Darling: I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman merely to smile approvingly at a fellow countryman does not indicate support.

Mr. Wheatley: It is an advantage which the hon. Gentleman has with me and which I have not got with him.
Turning now to another matter which is not actually within the ambit of the Bill, but which is dealt with in the Financial Memorandum, namely the increases in salary to the Chairman of the Land Court, the full-time sheriffs and the sheriffs-substitute, again I wish to raise a question to which I think we ought to get an answer: are these increases to be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951? While we are getting the uniform increase of £500 per annum conveyed by Clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill to the other judges concerned, I want an assurance that the increases to the Scottish judges, so far as the Land Court, the sheriffs and the sheriffs-substitute are concerned, will likewise be ante-dated.
So far as the sheriffs-substitute are concerned, this was an increase which I was very pleased indeed to negotiate, because I am quite sure that the English Members of the House do not realise exactly the type of work which is done by the sheriffs-substitute in our sheriff courts, and when I put forward to the learned Solicitor-General a plea for the consideration of parity with county court judges it might be of interest to the House to know the range of jurisdiction in the sheriff courts in Scotland.
They have both a civil and a criminal jurisdiction, and in the civil jurisdiction,

apart from actions affecting status, they have almost co-ordinate jurisdiction with the Court of Session, which is the High Court. In the criminal field their jurisdiction extends not only to summary jurisdiction but also to solemn procedure and they sit with juries trying indictable cases. A large range of cases can fall within their jurisdiction, and their powers of punishment, sitting with a jury, extend to two years' imprisonment.
In those circumstances, I think that that brief synopsis of their duties, leaving out of account the manifold other duties such as bankruptcy proceedings, proceedings under the Tenancy of Shops Act and a hundred and one different administrative duties, goes to show that they have functions to perform which largely outweigh the responsibilities of their counterparts in the county courts in England.
I think in looking at this question His Majesty's Government might have regard to the large range of jurisdiction both in civil and criminal cases which the sheriffs-substitute are called upon to perform. I am pleased to be able to say that during the late Government's tenure of office we made substantial improvements in the pre-existing position of sheriffs-substitute, culminating in the present proposals, and not leaving out of account the very important factor, which possibly has not been too much stressed during this debate —the great benefit which is now being conferred upon them by the introduction of the judges' pension scheme which was introduced during the last Parliament.
Again in relation to these increases to the sheriffs-substitute, to the Chairman of the Land Court and to the other judges concerned, I should like to know whether the expenses proposed under Clause 3 so far as the sheriffs-substitute are concerned will be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951. Here again the Financial Resolution has been too tightly drawn. I commend it to the notice of the Solicitor-General, and do not intend to repeat that argument.
There is one further question I should like to ask before leaving the subject. I presume that these increases in salary, if made retrospective, will count for pension purposes from 1st July, 1951. May I ask, in relation to these judges who are getting an increase for which no legislative power is required, namely sheriffs-substitute, the full-time sheriffs and the


Chairman of the Land Court, whether the increases will apply to those judges who die or retire before the Bill becomes law?
Provision is made under Clause 1 for that advantage to be conferred upon the English judges covered by Clause 1, and I should like to know whether a similar provision will be made in respect of the Scottish judges concerned. No legislation is required. It can be done by an administrative decision, and I should like an assurance on that point.
Before I leave the question of salaries may I ask another question in relation to a court in Scotland, the chairman of which has been mentioned in the Financial Memorandum but not the other members of the court, namely the Land Court? Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to increase the salaries of the members of the Scottish Land Court with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1951? No legislation is required for this purpose; again it can be done by administrative action.
When the late Government announced on 31st July that these increases would be paid to the Scottish judges the question of the members of the Land Court was raised and an assurance was given at that time that their position was being considered. I know from personal experience that negotiations were in train when I occupied the office of Lord Advocate, and I should like the Solicitor-General to let us know how these negotiations have gone, whether any decision has been reached, and particularly, if and when a decision is reached, whether any increases given will be dated back to 1st July, 1951, and whether they count either for superannuation or for pension purposes as from that date.
Turning now to Clause 3 (1), I should like to ask the Solicitor-General why this Clause is necessary, because it makes provision for travelling allowances to sheriffs-substitute. At the present time four sheriffs-substitute in Scotland receive travelling allowances which have been compounded at £100 a year. That was done by administrative action, and it has all along been felt that no legislation was necessary to enable these travelling allowances to be paid. As I say, for quite a number of years now such allowances have been paid to four of the sheriffs-substitute in Scotland.
In those circumstances, since it has all along been felt and interpreted that no statutory authority was required, why is it necessary at this stage to put statutory authority into this Bill? I have no objection to it if the hon. and learned Gentleman says it is necessary. I never thought it was necessary, and if it is now introduced may it not throw doubt on the validity of the payments which have been made heretofore? The result would be the same at the end of the day, but I am sure it might cause confusion and doubt in the minds of many people in Scotland if it were now thought necessary to have this provision in the Bill, or in an Act of Parliament eventually, when previously we were able to operate the same system without any statutory authority.
Before I depart from the subject of the sheriffs-substitute, may I say a word not to the Solicitor-General but to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland? Will the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate consider whether the time has not come to have a full-scale inquiry into the jurisdiction and structure of the sheriff-court in Scotland? Any such review might well affect the question of the salaries to be paid eventually to the judges of these courts. I do not wish to develop the point at length as it would take some considerable time, but it may well be that a thorough review is now very desirable.
At the same time, will the Lord Advocate, in consultation with the Secretary of State, examine the possibility of amalgamating certain of the existing sheriffdoms—I mean the areas over which the sheriffs-substitute exercise jurisdiction—not merely from the point of view of saving money but of providing the sheriffs-substitute in some of these outlandish parts with more work to do?
The great difficulty about the shrieval bench in Scotland is this. In busy districts many of the sheriffs are grossly overworked, but owing to the historical tradition of having a resident sheriff-substitute throughout the various parts of Scotland, many of the sheriffs-substitute in the outlandish parts do not have sufficient work really to occupy their time, and that has caused a great deal of disquiet among the sheriffs-substitute themselves, who frankly would like more work to do.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not call any part of Scotland outlandish.

Mr. Wheatley: I should have said "the outlying parts of Scotland" I hope that will be corrected in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They do not have sufficient work in the outlying parts to occupy their time as fully as it might be occupied. It is a great problem, and I know that it would be very much welcomed by these sheriffs-substitute themselves if some scheme could be devised to give them more work to do. One of the means of doing it might very well be to effect by administrative action—because it can be done by administrative action—the amalgamation of some of the sheriffdoms. It has been done in the past, and I think another look ought to be taken at the problem.
In conclusion, speaking for Scotland, I welcome this Measure as a step in affording appropriate recognition to the status and prestige of those who administer our law. Like every one else who has spoken, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who merely entered a caveat that he thought it was untimely although meritorious, I hope this Bill will have a quick and speedy passage to enable it to become law.

5.27 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley) is, I am sure, to be congratulated on at least the first part of his remarks and in being able to deliver a speech which, no doubt, he prepared to make in support of this Bill before the last General Election. I could find nothing in the first part of his speech with which I could disagree, and I think he expressed views which are held on both sides of the House with regard to the performance of their duties by the judiciary both of England and of Scotland.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to ask me a considerable number of questions, some of them relating to matters not in any way dealt with by the Bill, and others which, I should have thought, we could perhaps more conveniently discuss upon the Committee stage. But he has asked me one or two detailed

questions, and I shall endeavour to give a short, quick reply to them which I hope will satisfy him.

Mr. Wheatley: May I intervene before the hon. and learned Gentleman starts to develop his point? He has been good enough to say that some of the points which I raised might be more conveniently dealt with on the Committee stage. Will he give an undertaking that the Financial Resolution will be so drawn as not to exclude any of these points on the Committee stage?

The Solicitor-General: I limited my observations to some of the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I adhere to that phrase.
I shall deal with a few of the points that he raised. He asked why it was that under Clause 3 (1) we should now be taking statutory authority for the payment of travelling expenses to the salaried sheriffs-substitute. I understand the reason is that it is desirable to put the power to do so beyond any shadow of doubt by taking statutory authority. That is the short answer to that point. With regard to the increases of salaries to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, under Clause 3 (1) I gather that it will be possible without any addition in this Bill to make the salaries retrospective.
As for expenses under Clause (2), what we might call circuit expenses, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying that we are not providing payment retrospectively, and I am sure that he will appreciate that there are difficulties about doing that which do not arise in regard to the retrospective payment of salaries. I am a little surprised that he should have raised this point, particularly as the Bill seeks to implement in full, and does not go beyond, the pledges given by the late Government and the statement made by the former Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords. However, that is a point upon which, if I have not satisfied him, I have at any rate given him the reason for the course that is being pursued.
The right hon. and learned Member also asked me to express some views upon the parity of the position of Scottish and English judges. That is a field which would require a very brave man to tread at the present time, and it really


is not necessary in considering whether or not the Bill should have a Second Reading.
I am glad the Bill has received such a general welcome from both sides of the House, and we appreciate what has been said about it. There has been only one dissentient voice, and that was the voice of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). But I think the House, by and large, does agree that an overwhelming case has been made out for the increases contemplated by this Measure. Indeed, the criticism, so far as there has been any, is of a different character, and is that the Bill does not go far enough and that it creates a differentiation between the position of stipendiary magistrates and county court judges which did not exist before.
I should like to make it quite clear, that while the £500 a year increases to county court judges and stipendiary magistrates, taking into account the fees earned by county court judges in divorce courts, do mean that, on the face of it, there is a disparity in salary, with a slight effect on pensions, my right hon. and learned Friend, in our earlier discussion on Second Reading, said that it was not intended that that disparity should in any way prejudice or affect conditions of status.
One appreciates the praise which both county court judges and stipendiaries have received, and I think every one agrees that they all perform extremely onerous and heavy duties. This Bill makes an improvement, both in regard to county court judges and stipendiary magistrates.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: Before the Solicitor-General leaves this question, can he tell the House what advantage has been taken of Section 32 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, with regard to the disparities in salary of stipendiary magistrates, other than Metropolitan magistrates, because there is a difference in the same area, in some cases, of as much as £700 or £800?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me just before I was going to deal with that point, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede),

who drew attention to it in the earlier stage of the Second Reading debate.
The position is that discussions are now going on between the Home Office and the local authorities to deal with that matter, and, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I can say that there is no attempt, and has been no attempt, to pre-determine what the result of those discussions will be. Figures have been put forward as a basis for discussion, but I am quite sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wants to avail himself of the fullest consultation with local authorities on these particular matters.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), dealt with a lot of matters, but I do not really think that it is very necessary for me to say very much about them. He made an attack upon my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), on the ground that my hon. Friend did not know to whom he was speaking. He then expressed, as he put it, "our general view" I began to wonder for whom he was speaking at that particular time.
The discussion on this Bill on Second Reading has been on the instalment system, but I am glad that the whole House has given approval to this Measure, and I hope it will soon reach the Statute Book.

Mr. Wheatley: The Solicitor-General was good enough to give me an assurance that the increases relating to Scottish judges covered by the Bill and the Money Resolution, would be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951. I asked him about the position of the members of the Land Court, but he did not deal with that. Could he give me an answer on that point?

The Solicitor-General: Members of the Land Court do not come within the Bill, but I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate more about it, if he so desires. The question is now under consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for tomorrow.—[Mr. Vosperl

Orders of the Day — JuDICIAL OFFICES SALARIES, amp;c.) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the sums payable by way of salary, pension or allowances in respect of certain judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise any charge on public funds which may be directly or indirectly attributable—

(a) to the Act providing, as from any date not earlier than the beginning of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, for the salaries of the judges and magistrates mentioned in the Table set out below to be increased to the annual amounts there shown;
(b) to the Act enabling the salaries of stipendiary magistrates outside London to be increased retrospectively as from any such date, and making provision as to the maximum salary where there has been a retrospective increase in the salary of a metropolitan magistrate;
(c) to the Act providing for the payment (out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund) of circuit allowances to the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary in Scotland and to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and of travelling allowances to sheriffs-substitute in Scotland;
(d) to the Act providing that in the case of a judge of the Supreme Court, of the Court of Session, or of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, previous service as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary may be treated for pension purposes as if it were service as such a judge.

The Table above referred to


Judge or Magistrate
Increased salary


Judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland (except the Lord Chief Justice)
£3,500


County court Judge
£2,800


Chief metropolitan magistrate
£2,800


Other metropolitan magistrates
£2,500

—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Wheatley: I gave notice that I would raise this point at this stage. As the Financial Resolution is drawn, provision is made for the ante-dating of the increases in salaries to the English and Irish judges to 1st July, 1951, but no provision is made for the ante-dating of the travelling allowances under Clause 3 and the circuit allowances under Clause 2 to the Scottish judges.
I indicated in my speech that these must be regarded as part of the total emoluments or remuneration of the judges in Scotland, and it seems to me to be quite unfair that, if we are now going to regard them as part of the total emoluments of our Scottish judges, and we are going to give an increase in those emoluments to include travelling expenses or circuit allowances, it is grossly unfair that such benefits should not likewise be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951.
I understand the position to be that, while we can contract a Financial Resolution, we cannot expand it, and, therefore, it would be impossible for the Government to amend this Financial Resolution to enable a provision to be inserted at this stage to allow the payments to which I have referred, namely, travelling expenses and circuit allowances, to be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951. The only procedure now open to the Government is to take away this Financial Resolution and come back with a fresh one to include the provisions whose insertion I am now seeking. I make this very earnest appeal and solicit the aid of both the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate, who, I am sure, is at one with me on this particular point, having regard to what I would submit is an injustice to the Scottish judges.
Looking at the matter very broadly, I think it would be quite wrong for us to pass this Financial Resolution, because I intend on the Committee stage to put down Amendments to enable these travelling allowances and circuit expenses to be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951. Under the present Financial Resolution, I gather that those Amendments may not be in order, and I ask the Government to take it away and come back with a Financial Resolution extending to the limits which I have suggested. In these circumstances, and without elaborating the arguments, I will ask the Government, and particularly the Lord Advocate, to take away this Financial Resolution and to come back with one that will enable us to do justice to the Scottish judges covered by Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the Financial Resolution, as it is drafted, will not cover the ante-dating of these circuit expenses. Had it been promised, at any stage of the negotiations preceding the


presentation of this Bill, that these circuit expenses would be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951, we would indeed have honoured that promise. Had this demand been urged by any of the parties involved in the negotiations, we would have considered very seriously giving effect to it in the Bill and the Financial Resolution, but neither of these things, in fact, happened.
I must confess that I am a little surprised that, at this very late hour, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced this criticism of the provisions of the Bill, apparently in an anxiety to tell the House how much better an arrangement might have been made if the late Government had made the arrangement. What we are doing is to give effect to an arrangement made during last summer—I am not going further than that—and, accordingly, whatever the merits of the ultimate question may be, we are not prepared to alter the Financial Resolution in any way to extend it beyond the terms in which it is at present drawn.

Mr. Wheatley: I only rise because of a remark passed by the Lord Advocate, who said that part of the purpose of my speech was merely to indicate how much better the late Government would have done this particular piece of business than the present Government. Nothing was further from my thoughts.

The Lord Advocate: I did not really say that. What I did say was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be anxious to tell the House how much better an arrangement might have been made than the arrangements which he, in fact, did make.

Mr. Wheatley: That is even worse, if I may say so, because, what happened when the negotiations were entered into was that I did give an undertaking that the increases would be dated as from the same date as the increase to the English and Irish judges. I quite frankly admit that the question of ante-dating these particular allowances and expenses was not raised at all, but there was a general undertaking given that the increases to the Scottish judges would be dated as from the same date as the increase to the English and Irish judges. Therefore, it was not a question of this having been put forward and rejected or accepted; it was never specifically mentioned.
I am rather surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to resist

this. There is not a great deal of money involved, but there is a great deal of principle, and I am sorry that he should resist it. I thought he would have supported it, because it is merely elementary justice in ante-dating all these emoluments to the same date.
I tell him here and now that, as the person who conducted the negotiations with the judges in Scotland in regard to these matters, while this matter was not raised specifically in the course of the negotiations, an undertaking was given that the increases would be dated to the same date as the increases to the English and Irish judges. If this point had been specifically raised, I would have done all in my power to persuade the Treasury to accept this ante-dating of circuit expenses and travelling allowances for sheriff-substitute.
There is no party question in this at all. We are merely trying to do the best for our Scottish judges in getting them what we regard as a just and fair settlement. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the matter again, to consult with his colleagues, and to come back with a proper Financial Resolution.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I feel that I am intruding into a private meeting of the Faculty of Advocates and that I have sort of gate-crashed into a kin of special presidium or special soviet of the lawyers' trade union. I am sorry that I have not been able to follow the process of this debate, but I want to ask a question.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley), talked about elementary justice for Scottish judges. Naturally, I want elementary justice for everybody, but I would ask the Lord Advocate what is the precise nature of these new circuit expenses—how much per day is it and exactly what is it we are committed to do in this rather vague Financial Resolution. May we have an answer in order to see what sort of justice is going to be meted out to these judges?

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Mr. Hughes: May I have an answer to my question?

The Chairman: I cannot make anyone give the answer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BORDER RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTION, ETC., OF JOINT COMMITTEES.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 1, line 23, at end, insert:
or as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government" —[Special Entry.]

HOME GUARD BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 36, at end, insert new Clause "A" (TIME FOR MUSTERING HOME GUARD).
A. An order for the mustering of the Home Guard or any part thereof shall not be given except at a time when a proclamation ordering the army reserve to be called out on permanent service is in force or men of the Territorial Army are called out for actual military service in defence of the United Kingdom against actual or apprehended attack.

5.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"
Those hon. Members who were present at the discussion on the Home Guard Bill during the Committee and Report stages will remember that there was quite a considerable exchange of opinion as to whether we should now devise a form of words which might narrow a possible gap between the mustering of the Home Guard and the breaking out of what I might call actual hostilities.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War undertook to see if he could find a form of words which would satisfy hon. Members and perhaps allay their doubts and fears. The result of his consideration is reflected in the words of the Clause which was moved in another place and which has come back to us here. The effect of it is that the mustering of the Home Guard can only take place in a situation of really very considerable gravity. It will be noticed that an order for the mustering of the Home Guard shall only be given when either a proclamation ordering the Army Reserve to be called out has, in fact, taken place or

on the Territorial Army being called out for actual military service.
I think hon. Members will agree that neither of these two contingencies is the least likely to take place except in a situation of considerable gravity, and that, consequently, this Clause, which I hope the House will accept, does, in fact, narrow the gap, and, I hope, give satisfaction to those who have fears and doubts.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I am sure that we on this side of the House will want to express gratification at the fact that it has been possible to make this amendment to the Bill. What it does, although only in a very limited field, is, I think, of first-class constitutional importance, because it means that the important action of mustering the Home Guard is no longer exclusively within the power of a military person and that there must be a political act before professional soldiers can take action of this kind. It is gratifying to see that principle asserted. I have always had a limited respect for another place, and I always feel that it is at its best when giving practical effect to ideas which first find their expression in this House, particularly if the idea comes from this side.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: This new Clause arises out of the discussion that took place in the House on the use of the Home Guard during an industrial dispute. My hon. Friends and I wished to prohibit the use of the Home Guard in any industrial dispute. I submit that the Bill, as amended, gives specific power to use the Home Guard in connection with an industrial dispute. That power was specifically placed in the Bill when the Government were purporting to put in the exact opposite.
I contend that the power to use the Home Guard in this connection still exists in the Bill even with the inclusion of the Lords Amendment both in peace-time and war-time and that although the Lords Amendment lessens the possibility of it being so used in peace-time it does not prohibit it altogether. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to go all the way in this matter and prohibit absolutely the use of the Home Guard in an industrial dispute. This was something which I hoped they would attempt, but which they have not done so.

Mr. Hutchison: I do not want to leave the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) with the impression that we did not try to do what he desires. Our great difficulty was to find a definition of an industrial dispute or to designate aid to a civil power in an industrial dispute.

Question put, and agreed to.

(Clause 3.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 9, after "In", insert "section one of"—agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next Amendment is in page 3, line 11, after "and" insert "in this Act"

Mr. Hutchison: I did not know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I had moved the previous Amendment in page 3, line 9, after "In" to insert "section one of" With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the discussion so far has been on line 36, at the end, insert new Clause "A," and then come the two Amendments which I have still to move.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Amendment in line 11, because we already have the other two?

Mr. Hutchison: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest that we have not, in fact, got the other two, and if it is my fault I ask your pardon. We have not discussed the Amendment in page 3, line 9. The discussion which has taken place so far has been on the new Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is the question I have just put and to which we have agreed. No one spoke to the Amendment and it was carried. After all, there is no need to speak to an Amendment if one does not wish to.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: I think all hon. Members share the disadvantage of the Under-Secretary of State for War. Whether it was our fault or not, we did not notice that it had been moved, and I feel, both in the interests of the House and of the Under-Secretary of State who obviously wishes to make some explanation, it would be of assistance if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, could find some way within the Rules of Order to allow the Amendment to be moved and discussed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot go back. He can talk on the next Amendment if he likes.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 11, after "and" insert "in this Act"

Mr. Hutchison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is consequential on the one which has slipped past undiscussed and unnoticed. The previous Amendment was, in fact, a definition Amendment to show the two types of use of the word "orders" in the Bill. The word "orders" is used in two different connotations in Clause 1 and elsewhere, and it is merely for the purpose of clarification regarding the meaning of the word that the previous Amendment was inserted, upon which this one is consequential.

Question put, and agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FOYLE FISHERIES) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to place the High Commissioners in London and all other self-governing Commonwealth countries and the Ambassador of the Republic of Ireland in the same position as the ambassadors of foreign Powers as regards personal immunity from suit and legal process, including inviolability of premises and archives.
In the last 10 years a good deal of progress has been made in putting these High Commissioners and these other representatives in all essential respects in the same position as that of a foreign ambassador, and the House will know that as regards


taxation the Finance Acts of 1923 and 1925 placed the High Commissioners in the same position as ambassadors. The immunity arrangements have taken the same form regarding Customs Duties, and in 1948, for instance, His Majesty the King gave a grant of precedence to put them in the same position as ambassadors. The situation has now arisen that there should be legislation to give these High Commissioners and the Ambassador of the Republic of Ireland immunity from legal process and suit.
This Bill is not concerned with taxation or with the administrative exemptions from Customs Duties. The reason for the legislation is that the relationship of the countries within the Commonwealth is not that of foreign countries, and therefore the High Commissioners would not have the position of ambassadors by reason of any such relationship. Up to now the High Commissioners have been in the position that they are liable to legal process, and the Bill is designed to remove that liability.
The justification for that is that it is thought desirable, and the Commonwealth countries think it desirable, that this immunity should now be granted to them. One often has the position of a gentleman who may be the ambassador of Australia to a foreign country who, when he gets what may be regarded as the plum of his diplomatic career in London, finds himself from this point of view in an inferior position to that which he enjoyed when ambassador to a foreign country.

Mr. James McInnes: Does the immunity only refer to legal process?

Mr. Foster: Yes, in this Bill, and it applies to the premises—which are always associated with immunity from legal process. The hon. Member will also see that in that part of the Bill dealing with consular immunity that immunity is strictly confined to access to premises and official documents. It has nothing to do with Customs Duties and other questions which the hon. Member and I have raised previously in debates on the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1950. He will remember that then we were discussing an international organisation. Privileges and immunities covering things with which that Act was concerned have already been granted to the High Com-

missioners either by legislation or administrative action.
Having given the reasons for the Bill and having emphasised the desire of the Commonwealth that it should be passed, I come now to its main provisions, to show the House how it is proposed to grant this immunity. But before coming to that I might say that His Majesty's Government attach importance to the fact that there should be reciprocity, and provision is made in the Bill that if reciprocity is not granted or is whittled down His Majesty's Government, by Order in Council, can take appropriate action.
All the Commonwealth countries have taken steps in varying degrees to ensure reciprocal legislation. Some have actually passed legislation, others are intending to do so. His Majesty's Government have been in touch with all these Governments and have assured themselves that the legislation is either passed or is intended to be passed as soon as this Bill receives the approval of the Legislature in this country.
I draw the attention of the House briefly to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) sets out who are the people who are to receive this immunity. Under Clause 1 (1) they receive it without any more ado, that is there is no Order in Council procedure applicable to them. The persons who receive diplomatic immunity are the High Commissioner, the High Commissioner and his family, the High Commissioner and his servants, the High Commissioner and his officials, and the family of the officials. It does not cover the servants of the officials.
Therefore, we have the position that the High Commissioner, his wife and children, his officials, the wife and children of the officials and the domestic servants of the High Commissioner, but not the domestic servants of the members of the staff, are covered. That approximates to the practice regarding foreign ambassadors, and throughout the Bill the object has been to make the position of the High Commissioner and his officials to approximate as far as possible to that of foreign ambassadors and to give immunity to their officials and, in the later part of the Bill, to consular officials.
I should like the House to notice the proviso in Clause 1 (1), which many hon.


Members may think a wise one. It is that the immunity does not apply to a member of the official or domestic staff of the chief representative—that means the High Commissioner—who is himself or herself a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That means that where the High Commissioner has on his staff an official or has on his domestic staff somebody who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies he does not benefit from the immunities provided in the Bill.
As the House will see, Clause 1 (2) is subject to an Order in Council procedure which is set out in Clause 1 (3). The general object of Clause 1 (2) is to give consular status to various classes of persons working under the High Commissioner who correspond to consuls of a foreign Power or in other words, who perform the duties which would be performed by consuls if a Commonwealth country were a sovereign foreign Power.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: I should like to ask one question about the proviso. I am afraid this is a little more than a matter of personal curiosity. I notice that it refers to
…a person who…is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is not a citizen of that country,…
that is, a Commonwealth country. I was under the impression from recollection of the British Nationality Act, 1948, that that would be a rare case where a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies was also a citizen of some other Commonwealth country. But I presume this was put in because there are cases that could arise of dual nationality in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Foster: My impression is that it is possible to have a dual nationality. Under the British Nationality Act it was possible to opt and then renounce and then opt back again. Suppose a man was entitled to New Zealand and United Kingdom citizenship. He could have dual citizenship by being able to opt back and forth again. This was put in to take care of that case. There might be a case of somebody who had not bothered and who had been put down as a United Kingdom citizen and then, when it came to an investigation of his exact status, it was found that he was also entitled to New Zealand citizenship. In that case he should be subject to immunity as if he were entitled to New Zealand citizenship.
Clause 1 (2) is intended to give consular immunity to various classes of people defined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The first paragraph confers consular immunity on persons in the service of those Commonwealth Governments who perform the duties of consul. Paragraph (b) is intended to deal with the status of the Agents-General for the Australian States and for the Provinces of Canada. As the House knows, the Agents-General for the Australian States and for the Canadian Provinces have offices in this country and are represented here. It is intended by this provision that they should be entitled to this immunity, which will be conferred by Order in Council.
Paragraph (c) provides that the same immunity should be bestowed on the members of the staff of what is called "a state representative" in the Bill, that is an Agent-General. They are also intended to have consular immunity. The rest of the Clause deals in subsection (3) with the granting of a certificate by the Secretary of State so that if there is a disputed question before the courts a certificate is issued of the facts upon which immunity is claimed.
Clause 1 (4) deals with the lists in which people can find who is and who is not entitled to both full and consular immunity under the Bill. That corresponds to what is known as the sheriffs' lists as applied to foreign Powers. Those were started under an Act in the reign of Queen Anne when certain rude tumultuous persons pulled the Russian ambassador out of his coach. An Act was then passed, not creating a new law but declaring an old law, which set out the lists which were to be communicated to the sheriffs of London and Middlesex. Clause 1 (4) is intended to set out a similar list of people entitled to immunity.
Clause 2, also subject to Order in Council procedure, allows the immunity to be extended to other Commonwealth countries when and if they arise. I have already alluded to Clause 2 (2). It allows His Majesty, by Order in Council, to deal with any question of reciprocity which either has not been granted or has been diminished.
The Order in Council procedure is of two kinds. Under Clause 3 it was thought that the negative procedure, that is that an Order in Council should be subject to annulment by Resolution of the House


of Commons, would be sufficient for an Order in Council setting up consular immunity because that is really a matter of administration. No question of principle will arise probably in that case, and therefore it is thought it would not infringe the principle of Parliamentary control in any way if there were a negative procedure for the Orders in Council which decides, for instance, which of the staff of the Agents-General should be entitled to consular immunity.
It was thought, however, that an Order in Council describing a new Commonwealth country should be subject to an affirmative Resolution procedure in this House and also that any question of reciprocity which might involve relations between this country and any Commonwealth country should also be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I think I have put before the House the main features of the Bill. As I said at the beginning, it is one which is desired by Commonwealth countries and which His Majesty's Government think it proper to pass in order to approximate the position of the High Commissioners and the Ambassador of the Republic of Ireland to that of foreign ambassadors. It will mean, of course, that our own High Commissioners in those countries will receive equal immunity, and we think that immunity will be helpful to them in their functions. It is one that they should have. On all these grounds I commend this short and, I hope, non-controversial Bill to the House.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, this is a non-controversial Bill. The Opposition can do nothing but approve the principle of the Bill, because it is a logical development from the raising of the status of the High Commissioners to that of Ambassadors which was done by the Labour Government at the end of 1948. I understand that the Commonwealth Governments themselves have taken a certain initiative in asking that this logical step should be taken, and we approve that it should be done.
On all these occasions when we place relations with the Commonwealth on something of a more formal basis and make our relations with them similar to those with foreign countries, we appear

to detract from the family relationship which we have with the Commonwealth. There are bound to be some lingering regrets, but I feel sure that in this case there will be no lessening of the family relationship or feeling.
When the Labour Government presented various diplomatic privilege and immunity Bills to the House, on every occasion hon. Gentlemen opposite, with full justification—perhaps I should not say "with full justification," but "according to their rights"—took great pains to express concern at the extension of diplomatic privilege, and on occasions made our task a little harder. The hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised if we seek some further information and certain assurances from him during the Second Reading of the Bill. We seek an assurance that the way is not opened by this Measure for an extension of diplomatic immunity greater than that which is justified by the purpose of the Bill. We seek an assurance that there is ample protection against any such abuse.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the Bill aims to make diplomatic immunities of foreign representatives and of Commonwealth representatives similar. I am not certain—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make it clear later—if we are now going the whole way and whether the status of the High Commissioners and the Ambassadors is completely identical or whether there are any gaps. I believe the status is identical in each case, but I have been unable to ascertain that for certain.
The Bill, of course, deals only with diplomatic and consular immunity from suit and legal process, and not with diplomatic privilege. What I seek to be assured is that in the matter of diplomatic privilege, in view of previous Measures and administrative action, the High Commissioners will now he treated on identically the same basis as are heads of missions and representatives of foreign states.
In a way, it is unfortunate that these privileges and immunities are scattered over a number of Acts. They go back to the Finance Acts of the 20's and to various administrative measures. That leads me to ask the hon. Gentleman what progress has been made with consolidation. That question was put to me when I was speaking from the Despatch Box opposite, and we gave assurances that


consolidation of the various diplomatic privilege and immunity Measures was going forward as fast as possible. I should be interested to know if the process is continuing, how far it has gone and whether, when consolidation takes place, this Measure, together with the previous Measures which give privileges and immunities to the representatives of the Commonwealth will be included. It is desirable that that should be so.
As the Bill grants immunity only, I should like to know if it extends that immunity or whether this simply confirms the position which has existed up to the present. I believe that up to the present the High Commissioners have been treated as though they had this immunity from suit and legal process, and that the Bill only puts into legal effect a state of affairs which has existed for some time. Does the Bill extend that immunity at all?
I am not sure that there is not some danger of a possibility of the extension of consular immunity. I say that because the Bill introduces a new category of persons to whom consular immunity is to be extended. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Trade Commissioners and to the Agents-General who are to receive consular immunities. I am a little concerned here lest there should be an opening for an extension of consular immunity to those who might not be fully entitled to it. Some of the representatives of the States of Australia and the Provinces of Canada have rather large offices here. I believe they use them for trading purposes or for trading representatives, and in some cases there are even State-owned banks. One wonders whether the Measure as it is now framed might enable immunity to be extended to representatives of such organisations within those offices who perhaps come under the Agents-General and Trade commissioners and could be considered as their staff.

Clause 1 (2, c) states that the immunity extends to:
…members of the staff of a state representative holding such classes of offices…
Is that not rather a wide definition, and may it not enable such persons to be given this consular immunity? I know that it is sometimes very difficult to separate State organisations from corporate independent concerns. If one can refer to the Tass case, in which the Tass
Agency claimed that it was a State department, an organisation of the State, and was therefore entitled to immunity, I just have some fear that in this case a similar situation could arise, although I obviously do not want to compare with the Tass Agency anything which goes on in the Commonwealth offices here.
The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that in the cases where concular immunity is to be extended the Order in Council would be subject only to annulment in this House. I recall that on another occasion when we were discussing diplomatic privileges and immunities there was a very vigorous fight, in which, I believe, the hon. and learned Gentleman took part—at any rate, his hon. Friends did—and hon. Gentlemen opposed urged us—we met them in it—to substitute an affirmative Resolution for a negative one. I consider that it would be possible to make out a case for an affirmative Resolution to be required in this case rather than for the negative procedure to be followed. I consider this so because of the possibility of these provisions being extended somewhat beyond what is intended by the Measure in its original drafting.
I note that provision is made for the waiving of immunity by those to whom the Bill would grant it. I understand that in the case of foreign missions this immunity is waived as a matter of form in certain cases. I hope that in the case of High Commissioners' offices it will be understood that they too will waive immunity in those cases where it is waived by foreign missions.
There is some confusion on the question of the special status of Commonwealth citizenship. Representatives of the Commonwealth have heretofore had a special position, having common status as British subjects and sharing the status of British subjects, and they still do. I take it that nothing in the Bill will change that position in regard to those to whom it extends. I also take it that the Bill does not in any way deprive these Commonwealth citizens of any of the full rights and privileges which are extended to them if they are also United Kingdom citizens, as quite a few might well be that is to say, many will be citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies as well as being citizens of a Commonwealth country.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Will the hon. Gentleman elucidate that? As I understand it, one might have been born in one of the Colonies and had British citizenship until the passing of the British Nationality Act three or four years ago, when one had to choose between one's citizenships. I had to. I ceased to be a British subject two years ago.

Mr. J. Foster: My hon. Friend means "a United Kingdom subject."

Mr. Baxter: I meant to say "a United Kingdom citizen." I had to revert to my Canadian status. The hon. Gentleman was speaking about the possibility of there being a citizen of two different parts of the Empire at the present time, a United Kingdom citizen or a colonial or something else. Is that possible?

Mr. Davies: Yes, it is possible, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman was moving the Second Reading the point was put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), and the Minister confirmed that that position could arise under the British Nationality Act. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) referred to colonials, but he meant to refer to "members of the Commonwealth." As far as the Colonies are concerned one is a citizen of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies. The hon. Member for Southgate will agree that there is that difference.
I want to be sure not only that these people are not deprived of any of the privileges which they would normally have as British citizens, but that at the same time the advantages which this special status confers upon them remain. Up to the present there has been a certain greater freedom between representatives of the Commonwealth in London, and no doubt in other capitals; they have enjoyed a special status one to the other. There has been a greater freedom in official and military collaboration, and there is a freedom from many legal and administrative difficulties which arise in relations between foreign States. We want to be sure that in changing this status as we are doing those advantages will remain.
The Foreign Office has accepted for a very long time the principle of not putting United Kingdom citizens in a

privileged position in the United Kingdom except as is required for the purpose of their duty. That applies in the case of foreign missions here, except in the case of servants of the head of the mission. It is accepted by the Foreign Office that it does not accept for diplomatic immunity citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies except in the case of servants; that is to say, special privileges are not given to citizens of the United Kingdom who are employed in foreign embassies in London unless they are on the domestic staff of the head of a mission. Immunity is then extended to them.
Incidentally, there has been a regrettable increase in the number classed as on the domestic staffs of heads of missions. Figures were given me in reply to a Question today to the effect that between 1945 and the present time the numbers of those classified by foreign missions in London as being domestics have risen from 537 to 861. I sometimes have a slight suspicion that some of these people might be wrongly classified with the purpose of obtaining that diplomatic immunity.
In this Bill in this respect there is a commendable advance—that is to say, staff employed by the High Commissioner, even if they are employed as domestic staff, will receive immunity only in respect of their official capacity—in respect of actions performed in an official capacity. Furthermore, immunity is not granted to their families. This is a commendable advance, and I hope that it foreshadows the intention of the Government to extend this proviso to foreign missions. We were told today that the inter-Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Somervell, has issued its Report. I hope that Report makes the recommendation I suggest and that its recommendation will be acted upon.
There are one or two smaller points I want to bring to the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention which, perhaps, he can elucidate when he replies to the debate. First, there is the question of the inclusion in the Bill of the Republic of Ireland. I take it that the Republic of Ireland is included because of the Ireland Act. Under the Ireland Act, the Republic of Ireland is not treated as a foreign country. As far as diplomatic representation in the capital is concerned, it


is treated as though the head of mission were a High Commissioner, with all the measures which apply to the High Commissioner applying to the Irish ambassador. It is perhaps somewhat Irish that at this stage the Irish representative here is an ambassador. He calls himself an ambassador and sits in the Ambassadors' Gallery.
He has now been raised to the status of an ambassador, similarly with the High Commissioners, but it seems that in order to obtain the privilege of being an ambassador, the ambassador of Ireland is to be treated as a High Commissioner. As I say, it seems somewhat Irish, but the ultimate result is to his benefit. Of course, the Agents-General or Trade Commissioners or High Commissioners, or whoever may represent Northern Ireland in this country, are excluded from the Bill, and we have no complications there.
A small point arises about Southern Rhodesia. That State is included but I understand that the representative of Southern Rhodesia today is not considered of ambassadorial rank. I know that when one encounters him one does not address him as "Your Excellency" I should like to know why the privilege should be extended in the Bill, why if he has a different rank the Bill applies to him.
The Bill does not seem to extend to the Colonies. Is it proposed that the Colonies themselves should take action in this regard, or what is the position? It means that any representative of the Commonwealth today in any of the British Colonies would apparently not receive the immunity to which he would normally be entitled and which he would receive in this country, or which his colleagues representing other countries would receive. It is also necessary to suggest that reciprocity should be granted, and I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that Commonwealth countries are taking action to introduce similar Measures in their countries. I hope they will proceed with as much speed as possible.
Those are the points I wish to put before the hon. and learned Gentleman, in no controversial spirit but simply with a view to elucidating certain matters which have occurred to me. We will, of course, support the Bill, and if anything

arises from the explanations he gives which we consider calls for amendment, that can be dealt with on the Committee stage.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I think it would be wrong if this Bill were to receive a Second Reading without at least one voice being raised from this side of the House to point to the underlying meaning of what is being done and to give expression to a sense—I shall use a stronger word than that used by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—of grief that another step, however short, has been taken in a direction which some of us deplore.
In presenting the Bill to the House, the Government cannot shelter behind the real or alleged wishes of what is called the Commonwealth. We do not have before us a Bill for the amendment of the British North America Act—the type of Bill which this House necessarily and logically passes automatically, being governed in that matter by the wishes of the only country concerned. We are here legislating for what is going to be done or not done in this country.
We are exercising our own responsibility as the Legislature of the United Kingdom and, while the wishes of the territories who send High Commissioners to this country are relevant, they cannot be an over-riding or decisive factor. I must add that personally I doubt either whether there is satisfactory machinery for ascertaining whether such a change in the law is generally desired or, whether, in fact, in this case a lively desire that this Measure should go through exists even outside this country.
The Bill is one of the progeny—one of the smallest of the progeny, but still one of the progeny—of that most evil Statute, the British Nationality Act, 1948. It is not the first and I fear it will not be the last. As soon as the dragon's teeth of that Act had been sown, the crop of armed men was not long in springing up. It bore its ill fruit first in the Ireland Act, 1949, and then in the India (Consequential Provisions) Act of the same year, as it was euphemistically described. Now we have one more in the series of Acts which follow from the principal Act.
That statute effected a complete revolution in the basis of British subject-hood. It substituted for the old basis, which was our duty of allegiance to our common Sovereign, an entirely new basis. From 1st January, 1949, the whole body of British subjects have been not those persons owing allegiance to His Majesty but the sum total of a series of citizenships created by the various legislatures and able to be altered by legislative acts of those bodies. It was perhaps the most serious and revolutionary change that has taken place in the constitution of the Empire.
As I have said, in this Bill we are seeing one of its consequences; for if that Act had not been passed, this Bill would have been impossible. The Bill confers immunity upon a particular category of British subjects in this country. It makes a differentiation in the eyes of the law between two categories of British subjects, between those who are what is called "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" and those who are not; for a person to whom the description of High Commissioner or any of the servants of a High Commissioner applies, who is also a citizen of the United King-don and Colonies, is placed in a different legal position from that of a similar person who is not such a citizen. It therefore effects a distinction in this country in the eyes of the law between the rights of two British subjects.
The fact that that consequence might flow from the 1948 Act was apprehended at the time and was one of the grounds upon which many of my hon. Friends opposed the passing of that Act in the form which, in the event, it took. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has left the Chamber for a moment, because he put this particularly well on 13th July, 1948. When referring to the Act of 1948, then a Bill, he said:
Why should we invent the machinery of discrimination?…If it is intended to mean nothing, as the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have said—if it is not intended to put the new citizen in any better position—that is an excellent reason for not having that machinery…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 1029-1030.]
Inevitably, the power to distinguish in this country in the eyes of the law be-

tween different categories of British subjects will be used. This is the first case where it has come into use. This is the first case where that discriminatory machinery has been used which the then Attorney-General was at pains to assure the House would, he hoped, never be used, although, as he said, he could not bind a future Parliament.
I do not think that is either necessary or desirable. It is a consequence which hon. Members, and particularly those on this side of the House, should hesitate and be reluctant to draw from the 1948 Act. After all, we have said as a party in our "Imperial Policy" statement of 1949, that we hold ourselves:
…free to return to the old conception of common citizenship, if this should be the wish of the other Dominions and member States.
That is a quotation from the document. I suggest that the Government would be better occupied, with their fellow Ministers in the other parts of His Majesty's Dominions, in seeking to obtain the basis of agreement for a new Nationality Act to replace that of 1948 than in working out the consequences of the 1948 Act.
In 1949, when referring to the first of the consequential Acts, the Ireland Act, the same Conservative document said about Ireland:
Her position is unique, and it must certainly not be regarded as a precedent.
Within a few months it had been taken as a precedent in the case of India. Make no mistake, as long as the 1948 Act remains on the Statute Book it will continue to operate to tear asunder the component parts of the British Empire. It will continue to operate to create in this country legal distinctions between different categories of British subjects—a thing which for centuries we have been proud did not and could not exist under our law.
I have based my argument against the Bill so far upon the special conditions of our relations with our fellow subjects in the rest of the Empire. But there is a general reason why this Bill should be looked at very critically. Nothing that my hon. Friend said indicated that inconveniences or undesirable consequences have arisen or been apprehended from the lack of any such provisions. He did not say that, in fact, the High Commissioners have suffered and been impeded in their duties by lack of this diplomatic immunity.
It is a general principle that legislation should not be resorted to except to obtain a definite and clearly desirable result—that we should not alter the law on the ground that it might be a good idea if the law were different, or that it might come in handy some time, if the law were changed. We should alter our laws only when there is a clear and evident necessity for doing so to meet an existing need. That existing need has not been made out. There has been no attempt to show that we need to make this alteration.
I recollect—and the hon. Member for Enfield East, has reminded us of them —the speeches which were made by hon. Friends of mine and by me on the occasion of the passing of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act of last year. We then strongly argued that until it could be shown that the various international bodies concerned had suffered, and had been impeded in their work, by a lack of the privileges we were proposing to confer, we ought not to confer those privileges. The same argument exactly applies in the present case. Therefore, I hope that, since my hon. Friend has a nine weeks—or seven weeks, is it?—locus poenitentiae, he will employ that time in reconsidering whether it is necessary or desirable to put this new legislation on the Statute Book, and whether, instead of working out the consequences of the 1948 Act, he and the Secretary of State should not be devoting themselves rather to attempting to undo the harm which was then done.

6.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has rendered a useful service to the House in reminding us of the discussions that took place when the 1948 British Nationality Act was being discussed. It is quite true that this Bill is a consequence of the 1948 Act. I cannot help but feel, however, that his reference to the discussions that took place in 1948 may possibly have caused some embarrassment to the Under-Secretary of State who is in charge of this Bill. My recollection is that he played a valiant part in the discussions that took place then and added to the weight of the legal arguments that were adduced on that occasion.
I recall that the then Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shaw-cross), dealing in particular with the position of the citizens of the Irish Republic said:
Although you are, and remain, a citizen of Eire, if you come to this country we will give you all the advantages and all the privileges that we would confer on one of our own subjects and citizens.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 1098.]
That leads me to the point that I should like to make in connection with this Bill, which, of course, in addition to conferring diplomatic immunities upon representatives of Commonwealth countries, also confers diplomatic immunities on the representatives of the Republic of Ireland who are, according to this Bill, put in a slightly different category, for reasons into which it is unnecessary to go now, from Commonwealth countries generally. If this Bill had come before the House two or three weeks ago I should have had very grave doubts as to the desirability of bracketing with the Commonwealth countries the Republic of Ireland. I say that for this reason.
Among the many nauseating circumstances surrounding the peculiar transaction which led to the departure of a 15-month old child, Thomas Kavanagh, from this country a few weeks ago in association with an American film star, was the action of a member of the staff of the Irish Embassy here in London. The Irish Embassy played a not unimportant part in connection with the whole business. What happened was that the Irish Embassy granted a passport to this 15-month old child. This 15-month old child had been born in London, in the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying a little beyond the confines of this Bill in bringing up the case he mentioned. I hope that he will relate his remarks to what is in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Yes, Sir. But I was endeavouring to quote this particular example as an instance of what can happen if a diplomatic representative, sheltering behind diplomatic immunity, which is to be conferred by this Bill, takes action of the kind I have described, which either sidesteps or runs completely contrary to the adoption laws that we


in our wisdom have contrived for the protection of children born in this country.

Mr. Speaker: But I think the action to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alludes took place before there was any question of this diplomatic immunity. I do not see how it is related to the change proposed in this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It relates to the change proposed in this Bill to this extent, Mr. Speaker, that if this Bill is put upon the Statute Book action of the kind that I have described becomes immune to any action that the courts in this country may otherwise be entitled to take for the protection of children born in this country. As a result of the 1948 Act, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, referred, it is possible—and it is a curious anomaly, not unusual, of course, in connection with anything relating to Ireland—for a child to be an Irish citizen notwithstanding the fact that the child is born here in this country, and is a British subject, therefore, by birth. That is one of the anomalies that arise from the 1948 Act, to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, referred.
As a result of this duality it was possible for the Irish Embassy here in London to grant an Irish passport to this infant, who, though born in London, was therefore, presumably also a British subject by birth. It enabled his transfer to the United States of America for what was said to be a three months' holiday under the surveillance of an American film star. That, I suggest, opens out an undesirable possibility—and more than a possibility in the case of the Irish Republic, because of the geographical proximity of the Irish Republic to this country. It opens out the prospect of an export in babies being conducted, protected from the law of this land, by one or another of these diplomatic representatives upon whom this Bill is seeking to confer immunity.
As you, Mr. Speaker, rightly pointed out, this particular case is not one upon which it would be right for me now to enlarge. I merely mention it because it is a very topical example of the kind of thing that may happen if this Bill goes on to the Statute Book. It is true that

during the last war—and it will be within the recollection of many of us—some generous people in the United States of America started a "Bundles for Britain" movement, which was very much appreciated by many people living in this country. But I should not like to see the beginning of a "Bundles from Britain" movement protected by diplomatic immunity here in London, either in the Irish Embassy or in any other of the diplomatic establishments that are to be covered by this Bill.
Fortunately, however, my doubts have, to some extent, been allayed so far as the action of the official in the Irish Embassy here in London is concerned, because, naturally enough, as a result of the public outcry over the matter, Questions were asked not only in this House but in the Irish Parliament in Dublin, and the matter was brought to the notice of the Minister for External Affairs.

Mr. Speaker: This has nothing to do with diplomatic immunity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has done very well, but he must realise that this is outside the scope of the Bill and out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I was just about to conclude, Sir, with the remark that I do not think we need have any fear in accepting this Bill in view of an explicit statement that has been made by the Irish Minister for External Affairs, who is, of course, the responsible head of all the Irish diplomatic representatives not only in London but in other parts of the world; and he has expressed the official view that it was most regrettable that the passport had been granted in the case to which I have referred. In those circumstances, I have very much pleasure in saying that I can safely ask the House to adopt this Bill.

6.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) in this question of the movement of babies. I would only point out that this is not the first baby who has been born in London who has been registered under a different nationality. After all, in India today, or in Persia and many foreign countries, there are plenty of babies born British subjects who are registered as United Kingdom citizens.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I certainly agree that it seems nowadays that there are a great many too many Acts passed by this Parliament affecting nationality. However, I think—and I hope it will be agreed generally—that this Bill should have general acceptance on all sides of the House. My hon. Friend deplored the fact that now one could be a British subject and not declare allegiance to the King. To us, of course, and especially to those of us from Northern Ireland, this is most regrettable.
However, now that we live in 1951, and not in 1851 or even 1901, things have changed. I am inclined to think that the last Act relating to the Republic of Ireland has possibly done good rather than harm. If people—and hon. Members opposite—would not try to sow discord between the North and the South of Ireland, I believe things would be very much better. Even today, we are giving the Second Reading to a Bill which, I believe, will be inclined to do good. I believe that if people would refrain from trying to throw the apple of discord between Northern and Southern Ireland, we would get on very much better.
I think that some of the Acts that have been passed, especially in relation to the Government of Northern Ireland, have been generous and liberal, and I myself do not dissent that the Ambassador from the Republic of Ireland in London should enjoy these diplomatic privileges in the same way as do the High Commissioners of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. I think it would be inclined to do good rather than harm. The question I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary is: Is reciprocity really going to be given in these Dominions overseas and in the Republic of Ireland?
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) mentioned the question of Southern Rhodesia. We all realise that Southern Rhodesia is probably growing as fast as any part of the British Empire at the present moment, and I think it would be an insult which would be resented in Southern Rhodesia if similar privileges and rights were not given to the Commissioners of Rhodesia in London as are given to other parts of the British Commonwealth. I wel-

come this Bill; I hope it will be passed, and I hope, especially, that it will do good in relations between the Republic of Ireland, this country and Northern Ireland itself.

7.2 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: My view of this Bill is somewhat mixed. I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but, as that primarily affects an Act passed in 1948, I think we have, for the moment, at any rate, to accept that Act as it is and work on it. If that is so, we must welcome this Bill as extending privileges and immunities to people who are now placed in positions equivalent to those of the diplomatic representatives of foreign Powers.
I took some interest in the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act of 1944 and, in the previous Parliament I regretted some of the alterations that were made in that Act. I recognise, however, that the 1946 Act was based on an international convention—or, at any rate on a convention passed by the first General Assembly of the United Nations. The idea underlying it was that there should be reciprocity so far as possible of privilege and immunity between all the nations of the world, and I think that I am right in saying that all the nations mentioned in Clause 1 (6) are themselves members of the United Nations—or nearly all of them —and, therefore, they have to be treated as being on the same level as all the other members of the United Nations.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether there is to be reciprocity if we pass this Bill, in the other countries concerned. Are they taking legislative steps, as we are today, to give to our represensentatives in those countries the equivalent rights and immunities that we are giving to their representatives?
I echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Edward Davies), who talked about consolidation. As one who has recently been sitting on the Consolidation Joint Committee, I think that it would be a valuable addition to our work if this somewhat tangled structure of Acts, dating back, I think, to 1920, could be shortly consolidated as soon as this Bill is passed, because, looking at the various Acts, it is not always


easy to follow what are exactly the diplomatic privileges and immunities.
I am not absolutely certain—and I should like to ask my hon. Friend this—whether this Bill is on all-fours with the 1946 Act, which did convey certain immunities—not privileges, but immunities —to the staffs of missions. Looking through the Acts I could not find any reference to members of domestic staffs, but I may be wrong in this, and they may have been covered under another name.
I was somewhat surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Enfield, East that no fewer than 800 domestics are now covered by immunities. These immunities are freedom from Income Tax and other British taxes and freedom from legal suit. I do not mind a few people being freed from Income Tax, but 800 seems to me to be a rather large number, because the effect is that the rest of us have to pay more. I hope that this Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Somervell, will look into the whole question of domestic staffs to see whether it cannot be, at any rate, limited, if not eliminated.
There is another angle to this domestic staff question. Let me put a supposition before the House. Supposing the chauffeur of one of these consuls or high commissioners—it does not matter whether he is on duty or not—knocks down somebody. He need not have a driving licence; he need not have passed a driving test, because, being free from legal suit, he cannot be sued for not having a driving licence, nor can he be sued for having driven without having passed a driving test, and he cannot be sued for the consequences of any damage he does to a British citizen in the streets.
In these days of mounting road accidents that seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory position. I agree that there is provision in Clause 1 (5) that a chief representative may waive immunity conferred on him or his servants for any purpose, and naturally I echo the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, East, that in practice the chief representative will, in fact, waive diplomatic immunity in cases such as that; but there is no certainty about it, and in the case of some foreign missions, at any rate, they may refuse to waive immunity.
I think this is one of these questions in which we ought to be very careful before we give extended immunity—as I believe it is—to minor officials of embassies or missions of various kinds which does extend down to consuls who may be living in some provincial city.
Therefore, while I do not wish to oppose the Bill, I regard British citizenship and British privileges and immunities as something that should be granted very grudgingly. I agree that there should be national courtesies between foreign countries and, for the purpose of this Bill, we have to consider our Empire countries as foreign countries because we are treating them alike; but, at the same time, I think that there should be some reasonable limit on these international courtesies, and that we should have some regard for the rights of the people of our own country.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I rise to intervene for only a few moments. I must confess that I, too, have some mixed feelings about this particular Measure, arising from the fact that so far no evidence has been placed before the House that this Bill is desired by any one of his Majesty's Dominions.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles), said that he hoped that the Measure would do good. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), described it as a welcome advance, but I think it is a doubtful proposition that this Measure is a welcome advance. I dislike the Bill, in the first place, because it is surely undesirable. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), made a powerful case, showing how undesirable it was to enlarge the numbers of those enjoying diplomatic immunity and privileges.
In the second place, it seems to me to be utterly wrong to assume that such privileges are desired by all the member nations of the Commonwealth. There seems to be some sort of idea—if I understood the hon. Member for Enfield, East, aright—that by granting High Commissioners these privileges one is in fact elevating them to ambassadorial rank. I am not at all sure that Australians and New Zealanders would regard themselves as being particularly privileged by being accorded the privileges extended to foreigners.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member perhaps overlooked that on 23rd December, 1948, it was announced that the rank of High Commissioner in this country had been raised to the status of ambassador, so they do have this status of ambassadorial rank, and that is the reason for this Bill.

Mr. Braine: I do not follow that argument at all. The High Commissioners have always been ambassadors of their countries—ever since the High Commissioner system was introduced. The fact is that the sovereign States of the Commonwealth are not regarded either here or elsewhere in the Commonwealth as foreign States. I see no particular reason why present distinctions between the ambassadors of foreign States and the High Commissioners for Commonwealth countries should be ironed out. I know that the hon. Member for Enfield, East, does not attach too much importance to the relationship which has always existed between this country and the Dominions, but that relationship is totally different from that obtaining between this country and foreign countries.
There has always been an intimate relationship between this country and the Dominions, animated by trust and confidence. We speak the same language. We instinctively react in the same sort of way. We do not find it necessary to embody our formal agreements in the form of treaties. Indeed, there appears in recent years to have been something in the nature of a conspiracy to weaken the ancient ties of sentiment and interest which have hitherto bound us together. It is quite right, as the hon. Member reminded us, that this Measure flows from the British Nationality Act of 1948. That does not make it satisfactory.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that the Act of 1948, which created a whole series of separate citizenships in place of the well understood and proud distinction of a British subject was a retrogressive Act. Since then the position of the Crown has been weakened. We have loosened the ties of Imperial Preference. External policies such as the recognition of China, have not taken into account the solidarity which has always existed between Commonwealth countries.
All these things have combined to weaken the ties between the Common-

wealth countries and ourselves. Now it is proposed in this particular Measure to treat the High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries as though they were representatives of foreign States. In the absence of any evidence that this Measure is desired by Commonwealth countries, I must record my disappointment that the Government have seen fit to introduce it.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. J. Foster: I should like to answer the points raised from all sides of the House, but I can only do so by leave of the House. I think it would be useful if I started off with the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). He asked a question about further information as to consolidation. I am not in a position to answer him, for the consolidation which I believe to be going on is undertaken under the ægis of the Foreign Office. My impression—it is only an impression—is that this consolidation is going forward, and I think the hon. Member is probably more aware of the facts of that consolidation than I am.

Mr. Ernest Davies: What I particularly wanted to know was whether this Measure will be consolidated with the Diplomatic Immunity and Privileges Acts?

Mr. Foster: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has stated and take counsel with the Foreign Office as to whether this is going to be consolidated with those Acts. It seems to me that there are arguments for consolidation with this as well as other Measures.
I can assure the hon. Member that there is no question here of extending the privilege which has been granted in the past to High Commissioners by administrative action or by contact with officials. It is quite clear that some officials are performing duties which correspond to those which consuls would perform on behalf of foreign Powers, and I, therefore, think that the House will agree that it would be right for those officials to have the same immunity. It is, of course, clear that there may be some borderline cases and that is why this Order in Council procedure has been used instead of what is in Clause 1 (1).
The reason why the Republic of Ireland is included under the Act mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield, East,


and also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), is that Ireland is not a foreign country from the point of view of the law of this country. Therefore, the representative of that Republic is being afforded the immunity which would be afforded to the ambassador of a foreign country. The reason he is not now accorded that immunity by legislation is that he is not the ambassador of a foreign country. That necessarily flows from the Ireland Act, 1949, which in terms, states that Ireland is not to be regarded as a foreign country.
This immunity has been extended to Southern Rhodesia, because it is felt that the present state of the development of Southern Rhodesia as a self-governing Colony is such that its representatives in this country should have diplomatic immunity, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles), said, the people of Southern Rhodesia would wish their representative to have that immunity.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East, asked a question about the Colonies. It is intended, if this Bill is passed, that legislation in the various Colonies should follow on the same lines, so that the Australian representative, for instance, in Malaya should benefit from similar immunity to that accorded to the Agents-General for Australian States in this country.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, was founded on the premise that this Bill is necessarily the result of the British Nationality Act, the principles of which he deplored. I would submit for his consideration that this Bill is not the result of that Act; it is only using its machinery. If the British Nationality Act had not been passed it would have been possible, and, in fact, it would have been the course which would have had to be adopted, to distinguish the High Commissioners and their officials and staffs by using some such expression as "ordinarily resident in Australia, "or" belonging to Australia, "or some expression of that sort.
But the British Nationality Act having been passed it is only natural and, indeed, logical, in that sense that the machinery used in this Bill must be founded on the provisions of the law which existed in the

British Nationality Act. What I am putting forward for my hon. Friend's consideration is that this Bill is not the result of that Act; it only uses the machinery which is imposed by that Act. In other words, there is this distinction between the citizens of the various parts of the Commonwealth which necessarily must enter into this Bill, because the proper way of describing persons who previously might have been described as "belonging to or ordinarily resident in" is to describe them as "citizens of" Ceylon, Australia, or New Zealand as the case may be.
My hon. Friend's statement that the British Nationality Act made this Bill possible is not, in my submission, exactly accurate. It made this Bill follow a certain pattern. It followed the pattern of British Nationality laid down in the British Nationality Act, but, as I have said, it would have been quite possible, if the British Nationality Act never had been passed, for this Measure to have been introduced. We would have had to use other patterns and other machinery.

Mr. Powell: I quite appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's argument that it is a use of the machinery of the 1948 Act rather than a consequence of the 1948 Act. But I am sure he will agree that in the case of the Republic of Ireland, what is done in this Bill would actually have been impossible apart from the 1949 Act, which, in turn, derives from the 1948 Act.

Mr. Foster: If the other alternative would have been that Ireland would be regarded as a foreign country, the Bill would have been unnecessary, because it would have followed inevitably that the ambassador of the Republic of Ireland would be the ambassador of a foreign country and therefore would have been entitled to immunity. He not being the ambassador of a foreign country, it was thought necessary that he should be included in the Bill.
The Bill can hardly be described as operating to tear asunder the component parts of the British Empire and to make legal distinctions between British subjects. What, in fact, it is doing is equating the position of High Commissioners, their officials, their staffs and their domestic servants to the position of the foreign ambassador and his staff. That is only


recognising a fact which was enshrined in the Statute of Westminster, and which had already become a fact in 1919 when the component nations of the Commonwealth signed the Treaty of Versailles and became members of the League of Nations. The Bill gives the representatives of those countries the status to which their existence as sovereign States entitles them.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) would see some justification for the Bill in that it is not regarding the countries of the Commonwealth as foreign, but gives them the status due to sovereign States. It is held that if the countries of the Commonwealth are sovereign States their representatives in this country should have the immunities accorded to sovereign States.
The legal relationship among members of the British Commonwealth is founded on their not being foreign States; that is the reason for the Bill. Far from enshrining them as foreign. States the Bill is made necessary because those countries are sovereign States and it is desired to give them the immunity accorded to representatives of sovereign States.

Mr. Braine: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving me that explanation. Can he say whether the concessions made in this Measure are at the request of all the sovereign States of the Commonwealth? If the answer is in the affirmative will he say whether similar concessions are to be made to British High Commissioners?

Mr. Foster: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes" He can be reassured that these measures are taken at the wish of the countries of the Commonwealth and that reciprocal treatment will be given.
I was asked about reciprocity. It might be a good opportunity to state, in a little more detail, the arrangements which have been made about reciprocity. The reciprocal action which has been either undertaken or promised by the members of the Commonwealth and Southern Rhodesia, and including, of course, the Republic of Ireland, is very important. I shall not give the whole of the details because it would take up too much of the time of the House, but I will summarise them in this way. All the members of the Commonwealth, and Southern Rhodesia, have expressed the intention

of passing reciprocal legislation where required. A comprehensive Act has already been passed by South Africa, and the Indian Government have covered the part dealing with civil litigation.
I have here the details of each Commonwealth country, bearing out the statement I have just made. Let me take one at random. New Zealand has agreed to grant reciprocity, and a draft is being worked out in terms similar to the United Kingdom legislation. The position in other Commonwealth countries is comparable. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, North, and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay can be assured, when this legislation is brought forward, that it conforms with the expressed wishes of the Commonwealth countries.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, about the need for this legislation. I can assure him that there has been some need. There was a writ served on one of the High Commissioners which would not have been served on a foreign ambassador, and it was certainly embarrassing. The position is always possible where some prosecution or malicious act might involve these representatives of sovereign States in difficulties. Therefore, His Majesty's Government have felt, although no serious incidents have occurred, that it is always possible that they might, and that this Measure is desirable.
I will not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) into the intricacies of his speech about the export of babies. I gather that he did resile a bit at the end of his speech from his statement that if we passed the Bill it would make possible, or even likely, the export of babies by one or other of these diplomatic representatives; but at the end I think he gave his general blessing to the Bill. The other part was probably just a rhetorical expression.
To the questions of principle which were raised, the answer is this: it is not a reason against diplomatic immunity that it may be abused in individual cases. There are two safeguards. One is that it is the practice of the Foreign Office, and it will also be the practice with regard to Commonwealth countries in civil litigation, that the immunity should be waived or the dispute be submitted to arbitration, and in criminal cases that the


immunity should be lifted. Diplomatic immunity is not the immunity of the individual, but of the ambassador or representative. It is like a curtain which he puts in front of his officials or servants, and he can lift it.
The second safeguard is that in the extreme case where immunity was not lifted, and where the Foreign Office or the appropriate Government Department thought that it should be, the person in question could be declared persona non grata. A hypothetical instance was given by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton that this immunity could be abused, but in the hypothetical case there was no diplomatic immunity at that time. The instance which was given could have been met by those two safeguards.
I think I have answered all the questions, and I hope that the House will now give the Bill a fair passage to its next stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

POLICE PENSIONS, ENGLAND AND WALES

7.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move,
That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.
These draft Regulations consist of three parts. Part I includes Regulations which cover the pension position of policemen who serve in His Majesty's Forces, and they are made under the powers conferred by Section 1 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, as amended by Section 43 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951.
Part II contains Regulations effecting miscellaneous Amendments to the Police Pensions Regulations, 1949. Part III contains Regulations which amend the Police Pensions Regulations, 1948, in so far as those Regulations continue to have effect under a Regulation of the 1949 Regulations, namely, Regulation 88. All the Regulations in Parts II and III are made under the powers conferred by

Sections 1 and 3 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948. In accordance with the requirements of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, I have consulted the Police Council, who concur in the making of these Regulations.
I am very anxious to meet the convenience of the House. I could deal with the Regulations in detail at this stage, but there may be certain points right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to bring out on the Regulations, which have been laid for some days, and it might be more convenient—I am entirely in the hands of the House—if, having given that brief indication, I hold myself ready to answer any points that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen care to put to me.

7.39 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I understand that these are part of the Regulations which will be submitted from time to time, and I should like to put two questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In the preparation of these Regulations, was consideration given to the averaging of pensions? There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the police forces of the country about the averaging of pensions over the last three years of service, and I wondered whether detailed consideration had been given to the possibility of some alteration in the system in order to meet the desires of the police.
If a policeman retires shortly after promotion his pension is averaged on his salary over the previous three years; if a policeman is demoted and leaves the force within three years his pension is, again, averaged on his salary of the previous three years. This gives the demoted policeman a higher pension than is given to the promoted policeman, if they both leave at the same time. This is causing a lot of concern.
The Home Secretary said that he had had consultation with the Police Council. He probably knows that there is dissatisfaction at the moment at the attitude adopted by the Association of Municipal Corporations Police Committee. There has not been the assistance from the Committee in relation to these Regulations and police difficulties that there has been in the past. The A.M.C. Police Committee has not given the co-operation or assistance which we should be entitled to expect. It is possible that in the very


near future other Regulations in relation to these matters will be laid and there may be another opportunity of commenting about them, but I suggest that, when he is consulting the Police Federation about these matters, the Home Secretary should pay particular attention to the dissatisfaction which exists about the attitude of the A.M.C. Police Committee in relation to police Regulations.
I mention these matters because the right hon. and learned Gentleman may, in the very near future, receive representations from the Police Federation of England and Wales in regard to various matters about which the police are still dissatisfied. The attitude adopted by the ex-Home Secretary and the awarding of salary increases to the various branches of the police forces were very much appreciated, and it is hoped that when Regulations are discussed—there are still a number of matters to be dealt with—they will receive the same support and attention from the present Home Secretary and his Department.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I would advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to take any exception to these Regulations. They deal with some very practical points with which it is necessary to deal so that various police officers shall know exactly where they stand and they make arrangements for adapting the Regulations to the actual needs of the moment in view of other Acts of Parliament which have been passed.
I am sorry to see that there is nothing in the Regulations to deal with the position of the widow of a police officer who is killed by a criminal while carrying out his duties. When I left office, I was having some negotiations with the Treasury on that point, and I am quite certain that, in view of the fairly large number of cases, comparatively speaking, of this kind which have occurred in recent years, public opinion feels that the widow of a man killed in such circumstances is entitled to special consideration. I hope the Home Office will be warm-hearted about this and will not allow the warmth of its own heart to be chilled by the reception that it is sure to get in the Treasury.

7.44 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, I shall be very pleased to deal with the matters

which have been raised. As hon. Members may not have had the opportunity of going into the details, perhaps I might explain the procedure of averaging. The Oaksey Committee, which made recommendations for improved pay for the police force, recommended that a pension should be based in all cases on the average of a man's pay for the three years before retirement. The Police Pensions Regulations, 1949, excepted from this policemen compulsorily retired—I emphasise "compulsorily retired"—on reaching the age limit who were serving in 1921 when the Police Pensions Act, 1921, came into force.
The Act provided that no one serving on that date could be compulsorily retired except on a pension amounting to two-thirds of the actual pay on the date of retirement. This exemption was intended to remain in force only for three years, by which time the Oaksey increases in pay would be reflected in the three years' average.
The Eve Award—that is, the award of the tribunal presided over by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, and set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—

Mr. Ede: It was set up by the Prime Minister of the day.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry; it was set up when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Home Office. If I may put it in that more guarded way I think the House will appreciate what I intended to say. That award has upset this position because it has introduced a new factor. These draft Regulations have, therefore, made this exemption absolute without limit of time; they have changed it from the three years.
Perhaps I may say a word on the suggestion that the exemption from averaging should apply to all pre-1921 men irrespective of the ground of their retirement—that is, that it should not be limited to those who are compulsorily retired by the falling of the age limit, but should be applied generally. That was carfully considered by the right hon. Gentleman, who received several deputations about it, and the draft Regulations now protect for all time the pre-1921 men from having their pensions, when they retire on grounds of age, based on average pay.
The difficulty, which I put to the hon. Lady and which, I think, has been felt by everyone who has considered this matter, is that to do more than that, which, after all, is a considerable step forward, would involve interfering with the settlement laid down by Parliament 30 years ago, which is a difficult thing to do after this lapse of time.
Perhaps I may remind the hon. Lady how the matter arose. After the Desborough Committee made its suggestions after the 1914–18 war, the recommendations as to pay were carried out at once by Regulation but those as to pension had to wait until time could be found for legislation, and it was considered right that the pension provisions should apply to the same people who had benefited by the pay increases already granted. That is why everybody has found it difficult to go back on the settlement, but I hope that what we have done in the present Regulations will go at any rate, some way—I hope, a considerable way—to meet the difficulty.

Mrs. Braddock: I quite understand the difficulties, but would it not be possible to put the police on a similar basis, in relation to pensions, as local government officials, whose pension is paid at the rate of two-thirds of their actual salary when they retire? if a man goes through the force and is promoted, but retires within three years, in the earlier part of which his pay was less than on his retirement, there is some difficulty, and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is great concern in the force about this. If municipal officials receive a salary increase, either from promotion or for any other reason, and then retire, they retire on two-thirds of their actual salary on retirement.
There is no question whatever of averaging for any of the corporation officials throughout the country. To me, a sensible way of settling the position is that a person should retire at the rate of his pay when he actually retires. It is not a question of adding up over three years. Either the period has been more than the three years, or it has been less. The solution is, to me, quite simple, and that is the way in which the police throughout the country are looking at the matter. They think that it is unneces-

sarily complicated when the method to be adopted could be so much simplified.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for putting that point, and I shall certainly look into the local government provisions and compare them. Frankly, I do not have them all at my finger ends at the moment but I am always willing to look into a point like that. The hon. Lady will appreciate, however, that the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee were, in general, well received and it is a difficult matter after consideration to omit that Regulation.

Mr. Ede: I think that the Secretary of State will find, when investigating the local government position, that there is there a five years' average, as there is for teachers and for most other people in the public service. One of the difficulties that confronted me was that in having only a three years' average, the police were, in fact, better off than the other public servants who, in similar circumstances, would have had to work with a five years' average.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I had been given that information, but I always like, when an analogy is put, to check it. That is the best one can do. I shall certainly do that, but the information that was given to me when the point was raised is the same as the right hon. Gentleman's.
I should like to deal with the second point made by the hon. Lady, who will, I am sure, excuse me from making any criticism of any of the bodies who are on the Police Council, because we want to make that Council work. I should like to repeat here what I said to the Police Federation five weeks ago.
With regard to the point which, I think, the hon. Lady has in mind—that is the creation of a negotiating machinery—I said that I would much rather that a decision was come to, even if it is a decision to differ, so that we could get on to discussing it on the Police Council. I think that that meets the underlying point which the hon. Lady had in mind. I fully recognise, as, I am sure, does the whole House, the work of the right hon. Member for South Shields, to which the hon. Lady referred.
The right hon. Gentleman himself raised the very interesting and important


point as to the possibility of augmenting widows' pensions when police are killed by violence, as distinct from accident, in the execution of their duty. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated to the House the course that negotiations must take and I am sure he will appreciate that all I can say at the moment is that I am taking up the burden which he has laid down and that I shall take it up in what I know he considers and I consider the proper way to bear the burden, that is, to carry it as stoutly as one can and make as much progress as is possible. In other words, it is a matter to which I shall give my most careful consideration, bearing in mind what he has said, and see that it is not allowed to be forgotten. I cannot say further than that because, as he has indicated, there are other parties to the negotiation.
I hope I have dealt with the points that have been raised and I should like to thank the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman for raising them and underlining the importance of my giving them full consideration.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether I understood him to mean that he is now in process of negotiating with the Treasury on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the ex-Home Secretary? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I am in correspondence with him now about a police inspector and a constable shot on the moors in my constituency in the execution of their duty, and I can tell him from personal experience that the widow of one of them is suffering great hardship. It would help considerably, if something is to be done, if it were done quickly.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall take that into account.

Mr. Hall: Thank you.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.

POLICE PENSIONS, SCOTLAND

7.56 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.
These Regulations cover the same ground as those for England and Wales, which the House has just approved. Therefore, I do not think the House would desire me to go into the details which have already been so ably explained by my right hon. and learned Friend. I would add that the Regulations, in accordance with Section 1 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, have been before the Scottish Police Council and they have approved them.

Question put and agreed to.

WAR DAMAGED AREAS (ASSISTANCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Oakshott.]

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very pleased that we have reached the Adjournment early this evening because it will permit us to deal with what I believe to be a very important subject affecting a large number of ordinary men and women in this country, namely, the general policy of housing with particular reference to the difficulties now confronting the war damaged towns and cities.
A few weeks ago a number of hon. Friends and I placed a Motion on the Order Paper dealing with this subject. Within a very short time almost 50 signatures were added to that Motion and, strangely enough, within a very short period after that we found that some of the Government supporters put down a Motion somewhat similar to ours. As today we have had more or less complete unanimity on all the matters which have been raised, it would appear that in regard to this subject we may have the support of at least Government back benchers, if not of Government Front Bench Ministers.
I believe this is a really non-controversial matter. When I put this Motion down I tried to get the Leader of the House to permit time for a debate on it, but he explained that there was not time, so I put my name down for the Adjournment, which I have secured this evening. It is rather strange that the Leader of the House should say there was not time, because it seems that there has been plenty of time to discuss this important question of housing.
Even last night on the housing debate, I would point out with respect, only one hon. Member from a blitzed town, my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), was fortunate enough to be called. I know there are a number of hon. Friends who want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary some of the problems that confront the boroughs and councils they represent.
I want to deal with the problems confronting West Ham, which, with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), I have the honour to represent. It is a county borough situated in the East End of London among the Royal group of docks, and there is a large industrial area situated on the Thames. Before the war it was very highly populated, and we had an enormous housing problem.
In fact, we have had a housing problem in West Ham, as in most of the boroughs of this country, for 50 or 60 years. I suggest that is mainly because of the neglect of past Governments to deal with the housing problem. Therefore, when I point out that in 1939 we had a grievous housing problem, I want the House to appreciate how more difficult that problem became when, from 1939 to 1945, West Ham unfortunately became the worst bombed borough in the whole country.
I have submitted certain facts and figures and certain matters I intend to raise to the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to quote to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, in addition to the few hon. Members on the Government side of the House, some of the difficulties with which West Ham were and are confronted. During the war the total number of all types of dwellings either destroyed or damaged was 56,700. Of that number 14,000 houses were completely and utterly destroyed; that is

somewhere about 27 per cent. of the total number of houses in the borough. It is literally true to say that every dwelling, from a public house or shop to an ordinary private house, received damage in some way or another. Therefore, I think it can be appreciated what a difficult problem was left for West Ham Borough Council when the war ended in 1945.
We are very fortunate in West Ham in having a strong Socialist council which has been getting on with the job of dealing with this problem. Whilst they have been doing magnificent work, I am afraid that, because of a number of difficulties which are not of their choosing and over which they have no control, they have met almost insurmountable obstacles and the problem becomes worse almost day by day.
Excluding about 400 houses built by private enterprise under private licence—I am now referring to war damage repairs excluding the repairs by private enterprise with war damage licences under the private licence scheme—the West Ham Council have repaired over 11,000 of the properties I have mentioned, to the value of some £7 million. It will therefore be appreciated that the council have not been lacking in getting on with the job.
In addition, they have built 1,533 completely new permanent dwellings and they have been able to erect 550 ten-year bungalows and to establish 925 two-year hutments. That makes a grand total of some 3,008 units of accommodation both permanent and temporary. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that in addition the West Ham Borough Council have used to the full the powers they were permitted by the late Government and, by requisition, have been able to take over 1,691 other properties which has made available another 2,500 units of accommodation. That means that the West Ham Borough Council, by using every means at their disposal, have been able to make available a total of 5,748 units of accommodation. They also have under construction a further 421 houses and flats.
It may be asked why all this is being mentioned. It is because I wish to make this important point to the Parliamentary Secretary. After taking into account all those units of accommodation which have now been made available to the people


of West Ham, the council are still about 9,000 houses short of the 1939 figure. In other words, they want 9,000 units of accommodation to bring them up even to the very low and inadequate housing position of 1939. That means that while the council have done a truly magnificent job, they have not built any new units of accommodation, if we take into account the 14,000 houses which were completely destroyed in the blitz.
I have not mentioned the problem caused by the fact that the majority of the 1,400-odd temporary hutments are becoming obsolete. They are out of date, because they were supposed to be used for only two years. It would appear that they will now have to be used for another 20 years. That is a very serious problem. Unfortunately I must add to the black picture I am painting by saying that over 60 per cent. of the properties in West Ham were built before 1895, and so most of the houses left are beginning to fall down. Because of the blitz and the bombing many houses which would appear to be in good order are having to be condemned as dangerous structures; and people who are apparently adequately housed are being taken out of these existing units of accommodation.
When I point out that the council also have an urgent priority housing list—and I would emphasise that it is urgent —of 14,000 which is growing at the rate of 140 families per month, it will be understood that this is a really difficult and sorry state of affairs for a borough such as West Ham. This problem is not raised because there is in office a Conservative Government. When we on this side of the House were in office it was continually raised by hon. Members representing Southampton Divisions and by Mrs. Lucy Middleton who then represented a Plymouth Division. They did great work on behalf of these blitzed cities.
That is what I would term the general difficulty of housing, but it is an easy problem in comparison with the other major problem of loss of rateable value. Because of the loss of dwellings, mainly through the blitz, the rateable value in West Ham alone from 1939 to 1951 has decreased by £237,000, which amounts to some 17 per cent. West Ham, which is mainly a working-class borough, has to carry the enormous rate of 25s. in the £.
But even with this enormous rate the council cannot pay for their basic services, and it is true to say that the council are on the deficit side to the extent of some £296,000 per annum. We do get a special grant in West Ham, and I would pay tribute to the late Government for that. They did assist us, not so well as we should have liked, but they did give us £85,000 a year. Incidentally, that will end this next current year, and I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the council are confronted with a problem which is almost unsurmountable.
I want to state quite categorically that I believe that the West Ham Council, and the councils of many of the bombed cities and towns, are being penalised year by year because of the fact that they were bombed. It is an awful thing that men and women who stuck through the blitz from beginning to end, and who were bombed, not once, but in many instances as many as 10 times, now find that they have to pay 25s. in the £ in rates because the council is impoverished and cannot provide the normal basic services. It is the fact that, from 1946 to 1951, the borough council lost the equivalent of £1,400,000 in rates.
The point I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. While the council are trying, as they are doing, to solve their great and grievous housing problem, they are, in actual fact, strangely enough, adding to their great financial problem.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough) rose—

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, there is plenty of time, and he will no doubt be able to make his own speech if he so desires. I want to put my case, and allow some of my hon. Friends, and probably the hon. Gentleman himself, to make their speeches if they so wish. There is plenty of opportunity.
I was saying that, in actual fact, by dealing with this housing problem, the council are accentuating and making more difficult their own financial problems, and I want to give two examples of this.
Included in the last two housing schemes of the borough council which were approved by the Ministry was one for 30 maisonettes. After acquiring and clearing the sites and making the arrange-


ments for the building of these maisonettes, the council estimate that they will cost £73,190. That is an estimated cost of £2,430 per dwelling, and the annual estimated cost to the local rates of these dwellings is £26 per dwelling, which means that, even including the statutory subsidy payable to the council, they will be adding to the rate burden by that amount of £26 per annum per house.
The second example is from the latest scheme approved by the Ministry, in which the council have plans for 10 three-bedroom houses to be built at a total cost of £21,400, which works out at £2,140 per dwelling. Again, that lands the council into trouble immediately, because they have to find £24 per annum out of the local rates to meet that added burden. As they rebuild and make up for the 14,000 houses which they unfortunately lost through no fault of their own, they must gradually add to the financial problem and the rate problem, which at the moment is almost insurmountable.
I must now mention the very important effect of the increased interest rates, which is going to be a grievous blow to the people whom I represent, because the increased rates that will be charged by the Public Works Loans Board will mean an additional charge to the council of between £14 and £18 per annum. There again, they will have to pay for the unfortunate fact that they were one of the worst bombed boroughs during the war.
I want to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary how really serious this is going to be to my own constituents and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South, who will bear me out when I say that many of the citizens whom he represents on the Keir Hardie Estate—a wonderful estate built by the local council—are already finding it difficult to meet the rather high rents which the council have to charge for the houses and fiats on that estate. With this new interest rate, we shall find that the tenants will be in the position—and I give them warning—because of the stupid and unwise policy of the Government, of having to increase the rents they are now paying by 5s. to 7s. per week.
I should like to quote from a letter from my own local housing officer, who deals with the increased rents which these poor

people will have to pay, and I hope that hon. Members will not under-estimate what 5s. or 7s. a week means to these people who are already finding it difficult to meet their heavy burdens. The letter states:
Although there are a number of workers in the borough at present earning high wages, they are by no means the majority. It can be said that, if the present rents on new properties are increased by this amount, they would be beyond the means of a high proportion, if not the majority, of the families on the Council's waiting list.
I suggest that that is the direct answer to the Minister who made the statement in the housing debate last night that, in actual fact, there will not be any adverse effect upon those on the housing list who are in the most urgent need. Of course there will. The facts are these.
In West Ham, the people who are in the most urgent need are, in the main, those with large families, because they are overcrowded, and it is these very people who, even now, are finding great difficulty in meeting their rates. If they are to have this increase of between 5s. and 7s. per week put upon them, they will not be able to accept houses at all and will go to the bottom of the list. Someone else, probably not on the list or not in such urgent need, such as a young married couple not particularly needing a house, will go to the top of the list.
I have explained some of the difficulties, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will deal with the wider housing problem. I want to conclude by making a few suggestions to the Minister on how the right hon. Gentleman and the Government can and should deal with this problem, affecting not only West Ham but other war damaged cities and towns.
Firstly, I believe that it is absolutely imperative and essential that there should be a special war damage housing subsidy, and that it should be allocated to those councils now in the unhappy position of having been badly blitzed, to enable them to rebuild and rehabilitate the losses of houses which they suffered during the war, in order that there will be no charge at all upon the local rates. I believe that the national Exchequer should be responsible for helping these areas.
Secondly, I believe there should be what I would describe as a special distress


grant in aid to assist those councils to re-establish their rateable income until such time as they have rebuilt these war destroyed houses under the special war damage subsidy grant to which I have already referred. Both these subsidies, of course, would end immediately the number of destroyed houses, had been replenished.
There must be some method of incentive payments via the councils to building workers in conjunction and after negotiation with their appropriate trade unions which would enable the workers to go to the areas where they are most needed, namely, blitzed towns and cities, to get on with the job of housing. I think it could probably be done on the basis of the completion of a contract. When a contract was finished there could be a share out of a special bonus paid, in the first instance, to the councils and in turn paid out by them to the building trade workers. I would emphasise that I do not suggest that should be done without the knowledge, consent and active approval of the appropriate trade unions. That money, of course, should also be paid out of the National Exchequer.
Lastly, I want to make a plea to the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the areas in most urgent need get the materials necessary for building both quickly and as cheaply as possible. I do not know what the short answer to this is, but I have been toying with the idea of allowing these councils to set up what I would term a special purchasing and supply pool of building materials to be made available to their building contractors. The councils could act as the purchasing agents and could allocate materials in short supply to those building contractors engaged on war damage repairs.
Unless something like this is done, and done pretty quickly, I am afraid there is going to be serious trouble in the bombed towns and cities of this country. The other day I heard an hon. Member speaking about Scotland and about the overcrowding there. I am not disputing the difficulty in Scotland, but I do not think it is fully appreciated what appalling suffering, misery and agony is going on in these blitzed towns just because these poor unfortunate devils stopped there from the beginning of the blitz to the end, bombed out not once, but 10

times. Now they find that the men and the materials, and, therefore, the houses will, in the main, be going up in those areas which never saw a bomb in the last war. They will be going up in what we term the safe areas, the respectable areas. If that happens, I prophesy that the so-called "hunger marches" of the interwar years will be as nothing to the marches that will take place of these homeless people from the blitzed cities of this country.

Mr. H Nicholls: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him one question? He made out a very formidable case, and I was most interested in what he said about the 25s. in the £ rate. Has he any idea of what was the rate in the £ before the war? If he has not got the information now, perhaps he can let us have it afterwards.

Mr. Lewis: I cannot recollect offhand. I said it was mainly because of the loss of rateable value, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was well below £1 before the war, so that there is something like a 5s. or 6s. increase because of the blitz.

8.30 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking in support of the majority of what the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), has said because, quite apart from that, I have a Motion of a somewhat similar nature down in my name. I know West Ham quite well, as I was often down there in the early part of the war, as a fireman in the blitz, and I know the dock areas well.
Now that we have a Conservative Government, I hope they will show that they really mean to help our bombed cities. I want to plead for priority in building materials and for finance to help these areas, but, above all, there must be priority of building materials. In Portsmouth, we still have large devastated areas on which no building at all has taken place.
As rates have been mentioned, I should like to point out that Portsmouth, which has a Conservative council, has succeeded in keeping its rates stable since the war without cutting any of the social services. I think that has been due to good management.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: But have the houses been built?

Sir J. Lucas: We have built over 2,000 houses.

Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if, in fact, that had been done, the rates must have increased accordingly.

Sir J. Lucas: They have not, due to good management.
I sincerely hope that we shall get more houses and, particularly, smaller houses which are in such demand for old couples whose children have gone out into the world. This is not a party problem, and I think that all the people of the bombed cities are united in the hope that they will get assistance, and, above all, priority in materials and money.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: It is appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) should have raised this subject this evening, because it may enable us to get an indication from the new Government of the way in which they propose to give the much needed further assistance to the blitzed towns and cities of this country.
Everybody in this country, of course, made very great sacrifices during the war. Everybody suffered during the war, and, in many ways, we are still suffering today from the effects of the war. But I think that the inhabitants of the blitzed cities made sacrifices which, in the main, were much greater than those made by the inhabitants of the rest of the country.
The inhabitants of the blitzed cities lost their fathers, husbands and sweethearts in casualties in the Armed Forces. There were also many casualties in the Merchant Navy. It was remarkable that the most heavily blitzed towns of the country were the great ports and that many of the young men from those towns were serving in the Mercantile Marine. The sacrifices borne by the inhabitants of blitzed cities were not only additional sacrifices in life—because there were many civilian casualties—but also in very considerable material damage to houses, shops and offices.
In Southampton, we lost a rateable value of no less than £300,000 during the war years. Practically the whole of our

main shopping centre was almost completely destroyed. That led to a considerable loss in rateable value because the big shops of any town are generally rated at a fairly high value and they do not have a lot of money spent upon them in the way of social services.
It is true, of course, that since the end of the war temporary shops and some dwelling houses have been built upon the bombed sites and the rateable value has increased from the level to which it fell in 1945. But even today Southampton has a rateable value of £190,000 less than it had in pre-war days. And in just the same way as in West Ham, though not at all to the same extent as in West Ham, this has meant a greater rise in the rates than would have been the case had not the city been so heavily blitzed.
It is true that we have had assistance from the Treasury in past years. The 1945–50 Government made special grants to blitzed towns to assist them because of their loss of rateable value. In those five years Southampton received altogether £720,000 from the Exchequer. But that sum by no means fully compensated for Southampton's loss of rateable value due to enemy action during the war. Last year those special grants to blitzed towns to compensate them for loss of rateable value ceased except in the case of West Ham.
The first question I should like to address to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is this. Will he consider reviving the special grants formerly made to the chief blitzed towns with a view to compensating them for their loss of rateable value, since even today that loss has by no means been fully made up by new buildings?
When it was possible to start re-housing our people in 1945 the blitzed cities started from far behind scratch. During the war Southampton lost, as completely destroyed or completely unfit for habitation, no fewer than 6.000 houses. Since 1945 successive councils in Southampton have taken full advantage of the housing legislation of the two Labour Governments and I think the housing record in Southampton since that date is equal to that of most county boroughs and surpasses a good many.
Since 1945 we have provided the people of Southampton with over 5,000 new houses, but we lost 6,000 houses during the blitzes so that all our efforts have yet barely made good the losses during the war period. We have not been able to provide the new houses required to re-house the numerous young couples who have married since 1945 and many of whom now have small families. I should say that at least a third of my daily correspondence deals with houses; and every Sunday evening I have a queue of people waiting to see me, nearly all of whom have grievances about their failure to secure accommodation. I have heard of a good many family tragedies—of wives who have left their husbands because they did not have a house, or of wives who threaten to leave, their husbands if they do not provide them with a new council house.
Nearly all these people told me they could not possibly afford to buy a house. If they are to have a house it must be a house to rent. Therefore, the new housing policy of His Majesty's Government which is going to provide a greater proportion of houses for sale and a smaller proportion to let—[HON. MEMBERS: "I understood that was the aim of His Majesty's Government—that they were giving more latitude and opportunity to local authorities to build a larger number of houses for sale in proportion to the houses to let than they had been allowed previously.
We happen to have a Conservative council in Southampton at present. I hope they will be wise enough to continue building the majority of council houses as houses to rent and not for sale. If a bigger proportion of houses for sale are built it will postpone indefinitely the chances of thousands of people now on the waiting list in Southampton of obtaining a house in which to live.
Apart from the question of houses to let and houses for sale, there is a need in blitzed towns for labour and building material over and above that required in towns which were not blitzed. I do not think anybody could possibly disagree that there is a greater housing problem in blitzed areas than there is in other areas.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My hon. Friend is drawing a very clear distinction between those areas which are

blitzed and those which are non-blitzed. He seems to suggest that special treatment should be afforded to the blitzed areas. I do not contest that for a moment, but does his argument lead to advocacy of a special Minister being allocated to the blitzed areas? The present Government have introduced a Bill to increase the number of Ministers and to sub-divide the duties of Ministers and junior Ministers in many ways. Would my hon. Friend's argument go so far as to advocate that a special Minister should be allocated for the task of building houses in the blitzed areas?

Mr. Morley: I am not suggesting any changes in the composition of His Majesty's Government. I think the present Minister and Parliamentary Secretary could do the job if they were willing to do it, and if they were allowed to do it. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary this evening if, by some means or other, he could give priority in building labour and building materials to the blitzed cities.
Then, of course, there is the question of the allocation of capital for fresh capital reconstruction in the blitzed cities. As I have already said, nearly all our shops in Southampton were destroyed, and at the present rate of reconstruction of the shops it will be at least 50 years before they are restored. Of course, I put the building of houses first, before the building of shops or offices. At the same time, while the building of houses is being continued we should like to see some capital reconstruction in the way of shops and offices in the centre of Southampton. The city fathers tell me that they could do with a bigger allocation of capital for reconstruction than they are at present due to receive. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could deal with that point when he comes to reply.
There is another problem in our blitzed cities. We have a large number of blitzed and bare areas which have become the scenes of accumulations of rubbish heaps. Could not some assistance be given in clearing up these bare places, so that they can be made into playgrounds for children or pleasure grounds, or something of that kind?
As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, this is not by any means a party matter. In the


recent General Election my opponent said in his speeches and in his Election address that the previous two Governments had done nothing whatever for the blitzed towns. That, of course, is quite untrue. They have given a great deal of financial assistance to the blitzed towns. He also said in his Election address and in his platform speeches that he was sure that if a Conservative Government were returned they would do far more for the blitzed towns and cities. The Parliamentary Secretary will have the opportunity, when he replies, of proving that what my political opponent said in the Election campaign was correct.
Finally, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer these questions: first, is he willing to renew the special grant to the blitzed cities to make up for the loss of rateable value?; second, will he give some priorities in labour and materials to the blitzed cities?; and, third, will he reconsider the capital allocations for new construction in the blitzed cities? I hope that the new Government will show that they are willing to come quickly to the aid of our blitzed towns and cities.

8.47 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I am very pleased that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), raised this subject tonight. I was only sorry that he did not give any credit to myself and other Members on this side of the House for having raised this subject many times before. One would have thought that it had only been raised by the Socialists in the last Parliament, whereas I think it will be generally agreed that there was more mention of our blitzed cities by the late Opposition than there ever was by Socialist Members.
However, that is controversial, and I will pass that over as we all now wish to rebuild the blitzed cities. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley). I did not get much support from the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot) when I had an Adjournment debate on this subject. I merely got a lot of impertinence. However, if he wants to rebuild the blitzed cities I shall do everything I can to support him.
My own City of Portsmouth lost 7,000 houses, and they were all old houses, as most of them are in these ports. It is

extremely difficult to deal with these matters from Whitehall. That has been my point from the very beginning when I first came into this House. There are hon. Members opposite who have said that Whitehall knows best. We know that is not true. Direction can be given from Whitehall, but the initiative in the rebuilding of these cities must come from the local council who know the way in which the cities are required to be rebuilt. For example, my own city is an island. It was very overcrowded, with narrow streets and terrace houses, and they cannot all be rebuilt where they were originally. That is impossible, with the new plans. Nor is it right that it should be so.
With that point in view, in 1942 we bought a large plot of land outside the Portsmouth area. Since 1942 we have been fighting for permission to build on our own land—to put up the number of houses we originally intended to put there. Until recently, we were successful in obtaining planning permission to build only 500 houses on this plot of land.
Just before the Election, most extraordinarily and after much pressure on the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—a matter of a fortnight before the Election—we were given permission to build up to 9,500 more houses on this piece of land. Previously we had been allowed to build only 500. That will be an excellent piece of land on which the present Government can build houses, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will do everything they can to give us the facilities to put up the houses which we have not been allowed to build on that piece of land during the last five or six years.
In addition, we want to build on the island of Portsmouth—to fill in the bomb-damaged sites; and that can be done only by private enterprise. There are no large sites of importance which are not earmarked for schools or hospitals, and only private enterprise can build on the small sites, putting up small houses to take the place of two or three houses which were bombed. I have every confidence that if we set the builders free we shall get the houses built in our cities.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very worried about whether we shall get the houses in the wrong order. They are


more interested in the queue—or in the ladder, if they prefer that. In my view, the people of this country want houses and are not interested so much in who is going to get them. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but we intend to put up the houses and the country will be adequately rewarded by the Conservative Government in the number of houses erected. Hon. Gentlemen who are laughing and criticising our plan will be in a different frame of mind after three or four years, when the next election is held. Let them sit tight for four years and watch the houses go up. They will enjoy it.
After all, hon. Members opposite want to see houses go up just as we want to see them go up; but they had six years in which to try to do the job and the country is not at all satisfied with what has been done in those five or six years. After the promises we heard in 1945, I am surprised that we had a debate on housing last night opened by the Opposition. I am surprised that they dare mention the subject. After all, in 1945, they said there would be no problem by the next election.

Mr. J. Kinley: Get back to the blitzed cities.

Brigadier Clarke: I will get back to the blitzed cities but hon. Gentlemen have got to hear this. They have had six years, as a Government, in which to build houses; and as a Government, they failed. The blitzed cities were the places which suffered most in their failure. If we have the building which I have every confidence this Government will do, then the blitzed cities will, I hope, receive the precedence they deserve after what they suffered during the war. [Interruption.] I warn hon. Members that I do not intend to stop speaking for quite a time, so they can relax.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North, gave a most harrowing picture of the problems of people in the blitzed cities, and I agree with him. I know the hon. Member for Itchen has exactly the same problem. People go to his "surgery" every week to tell him their problems—about how many children they have sleeping in the same room and so on. It is a tragic story. Every time I see my constituents I find that that is the problem, above all others, which is

affecting the people, and that is the problem which the former Government failed to solve.
That is why hon. Members opposite are so worried. They are putting every possible obstacle in the way of this Government's effort to build houses. They are trying to tie us down to say how we intend to do the job and how we intend not to do it. We have had only four weeks in which to try to do the job. Why tackle us yet? Let hon. Members wait another year or two, and then they will be worried because they will see the houses going up—as they will go up.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question mentioned by the hon. Member for Itchen concerning the problem of clearing up the mess. It involves a great expenditure to these cities which have bomb-damaged sites, which are strewn with perambulators, buckets and every sort of impedimenta. Last year Portsmouth spent over £2,000 clearing the mess away from the bombed sites. It is a lot of money, and it all goes on the rates, and yet, as the hon. Member for Itchen will admit, that amount of money is as a drop in the ocean when compared with the amount required for finally clearing up the sites. It is a national problem, and the bombed cities ought to receive some assistance in dealing with it.
The bomb damaged sites are not only unsightly but dangerous. There is a constant risk that children will slip down into the basements of ruined houses, and so on. It is, of course, the responsibility of the owners to see nobody does slip down, but when they have put railings around these places they are considered to have fulfilled their responsibility and there remains the danger that children may fall down them. Accidents have happened. Moreover, they are unhealthy. Flies breed in them, and they are used as tipping places for garbage. Many of the sites will never be built on again because planning permission will not be given for the building of houses on them.
I suggest that we build houses by somewhat quicker means than have so far been the practice. In our housing manual we have traditional and nontraditional ways of building. There seems to be a theory, however, that we must stick to the use of bricks. We can get on far quicker by modern methods of


building. Hon. Gentlemen conversant with the building trade know how houses can be built more quickly than with bricks, and yet without reducing the standard, and while building them exactly to resemble traditional houses. I have seen some at St. Mary Cray and other places that are first class and are already five or six years old. Some of the materials used are not in short supply. I believe that cement is in quite reasonable supply. Indeed, I understand that we are exporting cement, and most of these houses I am thinking of are built with cement.
I come now to the question of rates. We were given a certain amount of money in the blitzed cities last year to help us rebuild, and to restore our rates, The amount of money Portsmouth got was adequate only for the building of one departmental store. Not that I wanted a departmental store there. In the last Government we had a Minister of Works and another Minister responsible for housing, and there was no co-ordination between the two. We could get a licence to put up a departmental store or a licence to put up houses, and although we did not want a departmental store but would rather had had houses instead, if we had not taken the departmental store we should have lost everything. I believe that under the new Ministerial arrangements and with a new Minister we shall see the bombed cities restored and the country once again reasonably well housed.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: I do not intend to keep the House more than a few minutes, but I think I ought to support my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) in his proposals regarding bombed cities. We hear a lot about the bombed cities. It is rather strange that in this connection Birmingham is seldom if ever mentioned, and it is strange because in Birmingham we had the largest number of casualties of any place outside the boroughs of London. We lost an enormous number of houses.
My hon. Friend's suggestion is that the bombed cities ought to have had separate allocations, apart from the ordinary allocations to deal with the housing

problems, when we started house building immediately after the war. I have had some 28 years on the Birmingham City Council, and I live in the heart of a bombed area. We had a great housing problem before the war. Today our housing problem is great not only because of the many marriages and the demand of newly married couples for homes, but because it must have been aggravated by the loss of houses in the war.
We have 61,000 people on the housing register. According to figures which I received yesterday, there are 1,600 people waiting to be allocated houses for whom there are no houses yet ready. I do not want to be controversial like the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth. West (Brigadier Clarke), but there is one point I should like to mention. There is no doubt about it, that if we build houses for sale it cannot do Birmingham much good, because when Birmingham took a recent census of the people who wanted to build their own houses, 3,000 applied to the corporation, and only 1,200 were on the housing register. Out of that 61,000 on the register, 1,400 are waiting for re-lets of the old municipal houses because they cannot afford to pay for the houses which we are now building.
I believe that some separate allocation should be made to the bombed towns and cities for materials and labour for housing. The point I want to make specially has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) and the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth West. One of the greatest eyesores—six-and-a-half years after the war—is the fact that there are still bombed sites in the working-class areas where people have no gardens and which are used for the deposit of old perambulators and builders' rubbish. These are the only places in which children have to play. I think the Government should make grants to local authorities so that they can not only clear the sites, but make some arrangements whereby these sites can be made into little recreation grounds or, as we see in some parts of the country, cycle tracks for youths.
Last winter I spent several Saturday mornings with a number of youths from school clearing bombed sites and making them into cycle tracks, to keep young boys off the streets. They have become very


popular, but local authorities are not prepared to spend money for this purpose or even for laying out gardens. I believe that if a grant were made the people in the district would take an interest in tending these gardens, because in a great city like Birmingham, where we have five new development areas, we cannot start to build on these small sites where houses have been demolished.
I believe that there are statistics in the Ministry of Health or some other Department with regard to grants that could be made to local authorities so that they could deal with these bombed sites once and for all, and not let the corporation just clear the rubbish off, and, in a few weeks' time, have them filled with rubbish again. I hope that the Minister will consider this question of finding out the number of houses lost in each of the bombed towns and cities and giving them a separate allocation for houses, so as to ease the situation and, at the same time, deal with this question of clearing up these bombed sites, so that they will not be an eyesore to the people who unfortunately have to live near them.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Higgs: I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Shurmer), because it was my intention to make some reference to Birmingham, and, in particular, to show that the problem which we are discussing is not necessarily confined to the narrow limits of the areas which have been blitzed. No one could fail to have been moved by the cases which have been given by hon. Members on both sides of the House on behalf of those who now live and who lived in the areas which suffered most during the war.
I myself cannot fail to have sympathy with them because my constituency is very close to Birmingham, and such part of the war as I spent in this country was on anti-aircraft gun sites in and around cities which were blitzed, so I know a little about this problem. But the problem does not end at the city or borough boundary or in the area which was damaged by bombing. Local authorities whose areas immediately adjoin these boroughs and cities are themselves faced with a problem which, although it is not of the same magnitude, is, nevertheless, directly attributable to the bomb damage nearby.
Industry, just like private people, had to evacuate during the war when the factories themselves in the cities were blitzed, and very often the most convenient place to which industry could be evacuated was a small town or large village just outside the borough or city concerned. That meant that a factory went, and, of course, there followed the people who worked in the factory.
Other people in anticipation of blitzes which might come, or to protect their wives and children, or even when they were bombed out, either evacuated themselves on their own initiative or were evacuated by the authorities as a result of a prepared scheme into these areas around the cities. Many of them could not go far distant from the city because of their employment which was still in the city and, consequently, there was an increase of population and an increase of factories of higher proportions in those areas immediately around the cities than in the country further afield.
Another problem arises here, which is still with us. In a great many cases these people have not been able to get back into the cities because of the difficulties which have been described by hon. Members tonight. Many of them do not want to go back; they like the country. A great many of those people, because of the circumstances in which they came into the country or into these neighbouring towns, are living in much worse conditions than would be the case in the ordinary way. Therefore, we find in those towns and villages near the big cities a housing list greatly inflated by this move out from big towns.
There are other little problems which go to swell this difficulty. In the country areas round the big cities there were a great number of anti-aircraft and searchlight sites with their huts, and after the war those huts became the homes of squatters. Because those huts happened to be in the adjoining area, squatters going out from the cities to occupy them became part of the housing problem of the adjoining area and not of the city to which they belonged. All these things add to the problem of those urban and rural districts near to the big cities.
The trouble does not end there. Anxiety is increased now, because in solving the problem of the cities which have suffered so much, there is a tendency to expand.


Here, again, care is needed in the solution of the problem of the blitzed city or town which is going to affect the surrounding country. Of course, when congested slums have been destroyed, rebuilding will occupy more space. Nevertheless, in the country areas which surround these towns and cities there will be great difficulty through the loss of agricultural land and in the loss of land which might otherwise be used for our own housing, if the exaggerated problem of blitzed places is going to mean that the large city is to bulge out into the surrounding countryside.
Therefore, I urge this one point in dealing with the problem in cities, that if help is to be given in rehousing their people, then we should be as economical as modern standards allow with the land available for building. Blocks of flats, as opposed to houses, could help in cities, and when we get outside London, into the industrial areas. I believe that a great deal more could be done than so far has been done in some cases to use up land which was derelict before the war and which is derelict now, because perhaps in times gone by it has been undermined.
I suggest that that land be used before we turn to agricultural land, because if it is not used for housing it will remain an eyesore for ever. Housing is the one purpose for which people will go to the trouble of levelling derelict land to make it suitable for building. When it is a question of providing houses there is sufficient incentive to the authorities tackling that which otherwise would never be tackled at all.
If this policy is carried out it will answer partly the very proper point which was made by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook that derelict land in cities, whether it be so as the result of mining or of bombing, is an eyesore and has a very depressing effect on the inhabitants, who, if we are to believe what we have been told in this House, have already plenty to be depressed about.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I want to speak for only a short time about a special problem. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) referred to the use of land which is not wanted for agricultural purposes.

The area from which he and I come escaped much of the evil from the blitz, but we have a great blighted area with its own special problems, and I want to say what the immediate difficulties are.
In many mining areas in this country, and particularly in North Staffordshire, there is much land within the city boundaries which it is very difficult to build upon, but which for obvious reasons we have to use. If we use this land, we are up against the problem of coal mining subsidence. Because this has been recognised by the authorities in Whitehall we have met with some success in getting a small allocation of steel which is necessary in the reinforcement of houses. There is a fall of ground of anything up to 21 inches a year in some districts, and it is essential that extra precautions should be taken.
It was realised that we had to build houses with some sort of concrete foundation and reinforcement, although it would add to the cost of the houses. That has been our policy, and we have had some slight assistance for it. Despite our difficulties, great progress has been made over the last year or two, with the co-operation of the workers themselves, and we are able to say that we are running at the rate of 1,200 new houses a year. We shall be unable to maintain this figure unless we get quick assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite and their right hon. colleagues who are responsible.
In August of this year we were given priority for mild steel bars of a quarter of an inch or so diameter, very narrow strips which have to go into the reinforced concrete. They gave us 70 tons and we were very grateful because it enabled us to look ahead with some prospect of getting materials, as we must, if the men are to stay with us. We have had the utmost difficulty in keeping men and building up a labour force. Although promises were given by the predecessors of the present Minister for 70 tons of steel and although 13 licences or certificates were issued in this connection, we have not yet succeeded in obtaining the steel, and the good work which has been done by an excellent housing committee, under a fine chairman, and with the cooperation of the men, will be held up very soon. Instead of building 1,200 houses a year we shall be building very many fewer.
There has been a lot of correspondence between the Corporation, the Iron and Steel Federation and the contractors. The merchants do not know exactly where they are in this, nor does the Stoke-on-Trent authority. As the hon. Gentleman will sec from the correspondence, they have been referred from one place to another. They are told at present that under the new steel allocation arrangements which were announced they will have to wait until 4th February next before supplies are forthcoming. Thirteen certificates have been issued, but only one has been honoured, and so, for the most part, the modest amount of 70 tons of steel has not been forthcoming.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this matter up, as he will appreciate its urgency. We cannot afford to stand men off and lose them or to delay work on housebuilding until February in these difficult times. I want him to give an assurance that he will take the matter up at once, explain the long delay and see that the steel will be forthcoming.
In addition to the general run of problems which all areas have in meeting arrears of housing, we have to provide houses for miners who are specially wanted in the district. We have been asked to provide some hundreds of houses for miners, and while we are willing to co-operate and do what we can to assist any Government to provide housing we cannot do it if we are not given the materials.

9.17 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I want to return to the subject of Birmingham. It is very suitable that the hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Shurmer) should have taken part in the debate, for, as many hon. Members are aware, he played a very noble part in the blitz during the last war.
It seems to me that in a city like Birmingham one cannot dissociate the problem of the blitzed areas from the problem of redeveloping the central areas of the city as a whole. The two problems go hand in hand. It is just in those areas which were most heavily blitzed that there is the largest amount of shockingly sub-standard housing. During the next few years it will be impossible to do all the redevelopment which is so urgently necessary, because economic conditions simply will not permit it. But in all our

emergency building operations, we must always bear in mind the kind of final solution that we wish to achieve. It would be very bad if, in hurrying over the rebuilding of blitzed cities, we left out of sight the picture of our cities as we should like to see them when finally rebuilt. There is a very great need for wise town planning during the coming years.
Secondly, while I agree with what has been said about the importance of rapid building methods, it would be a pity if we put up too many non-traditional houses in the centres of our cities. I agree that there should be non-traditional building on the outskirts of our cities where we are putting up new estates as fast as possible, but a large volume of non-traditional building in the central areas of our cities is surely undesirable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) spoke about flats. There is a two-fold difficulty here. First, in a city like Birmingham flats are difficult to erect because of geological conditions; where there is a very soft subsoil, flats take a long time to erect and they are very costly, for it is necessary to lay concrete floats before any building can be done. Further, flats are often very unpopular. People resent being turned out of their existing homes and being compelled to live in flats instead. When we build flats we ought to explain to the people exactly why it is so necessary to build upwards as well as outwards. We must be very sympathetic with all who are suspicious about flats and do as much as we can to explain why they are essential.
These, then, are my two points. First, the House should appreciate that we must always keep in mind the importance of wise town planning and not build in a hurry so as to spoil the eventual design of our cities; and second, in recognising the need for flats, we must take the public into our confidence and make them realise that, although the new modern structures may not be those in which they want to live, it is very much better to have flats rather than a heap of non-traditional buildings in the centres of our cities.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Richard Adams: My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), is to be congratulated on being able to raise


this very important matter when a fair amount of time can be given to its discussion. I hope that if I make my points very briefly, the Minister will not make the mistake of supposing that the points we are all making from this side of the House, although made very briefly, do not deserve very serious attention.
I propose to refrain from following the very provocative statements made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke). I only say that I should be happy to debate his housing policy at any time, whether in Portsmouth, Wandsworth, or anywhere else, so that the people of the country could understand what the new Tory housing policy is.
I desire, briefly, to reinforce what has been said by so many hon. Members by stating what has happened in Wandsworth, which, as you, Mr. Speaker, will know, is the largest Metropolitan borough in London—

Brigadier Clarke: Brigadier Clarke rose—

Mr. Adams: Not tonight—and was probably one of the worst hit boroughs during the war. I have confirmed with the Town Clerk this evening some figures in view of this debate. The position in Wandsworth is that out of 100,000 houses and flats in the borough no fewer than 72,700 houses were damaged during the war. That number excludes the London County Council properties in the area, and, therefore, it would probably be true to say that Wandsworth suffered damage to about 75 per cent. of its properties. Of those properties, no fewer than 4,031 were either completely destroyed or subsequently had to be demolished. A further 5,850 had to be evacuated because of the serious damage involved.
What is the position since the end of the war? Out of those 4,000 houses that were completely destroyed 581 have been rebuilt by private enterprise, 102 have been rebuilt by the council, some 627 prefabricated houses have been erected, and the council has completed the building of 903 new houses and flats. If these figures are added up, it will be found that although just over 4,000 properties were destroyed during the war, only 2,213 have been provided since the end of the war, so that Wandsworth, the largest Metropolitan borough, now has less accommodation than before the war.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Tory council.

Mr. Adams: As my hon. and gallant Friend remarks, that is largely contributed to by the fact that during the last few years we have had a Tory council—but I do not want to be controversial.
I turn at once to the problems to which the Minister must direct his mind if he is to deal with this problem. First, there are sites still empty which could be built upon if special provision were made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is not an economic proposition for any council, out of the allocation which it receives from the Ministry, to build on isolated sites. Obviously, if a council can build a block of 60 or 80 flats, or a row of 50 or more houses together, that is a much better proposition than 40, 50 or 100 isolated sites on which only a single house or, at the most, some two or three houses could be erected.
We all agree, however, that those isolated sites must be filled in as quickly as possible and, therefore, the councils should receive a special supplementary subsidy in order to make the proposition a reasonable one for them. When the councils have done that, I should have no objection to them selling those properties to the sitting tenants. That would be a much better proposition than permitting councils to sell to tenants on council housing estates, which would present considerable administrative problems.
Secondly, there is the problem of the sterilised sites. Prefabs were erected on sites which could be used for building. In the Borough of Wandsworth, too, considerable parts of our commons and open spaces were taken away in order to have prefabs erected. But the people want those open spaces back again as soon as possible to use for recreation and pleasure. Unless the Minister is prepared to do something special to deal with that problem I can see our commons and open spaces will be adorned with dilapidated prefabs for far too many years to come.
I wish to turn to the problem of labour and materials. Places like Wandsworth and many other boroughs in London and other blitzed areas used their labour and materials on war damage repairs after the war. In Wandsworth, following the work of a Labour council, although before the war there were only 3,000 council tenants,


as a result of their wise policy of conversion and adaptations there are today 11,000 council tenants. Because that policy was followed and we had large areas of bomb damage to clear up, we were late in making a start on rebuilding and have lost our previous allocations.
I urge the Minister to consider that those blitzed towns, which used their labour and materials in the early years after the war in dealing with the problem following the blitz, should now have an increased allocation of new housing in order that they may come into line with the more fortunate areas, which were able to start from scratch on new buildings immediately after the war. He will find that there is a very real point there.
Then there is the question of replacement of destroyed pre-war dwellings which cost more today than they would have cost before the war. An additional subsidy should be given to councils for the rebuilding of war destroyed dwellings. The loss of rates and amenities has been mentioned already and I shall not weary the House with that, but it is a problem which has existed since the war. Many hon. Members on this side of the House have continually pressed it and there is now a chance for the Minister to make a contribution, but so far he has made no useful contribution.
What are the three points in his plan? He has some designs which he filched from the previous occupier of his office. He has announced that the ratio of private houses for sale to council building is to be increased to 50–50. In connection with that, are councils to have the power to export their licences outside their own boroughs? If we are to be faced with the fact that in places like Bromley, which the Minister represents, there is to be a considerable amount of private building going on, men and labour, which should be used in places like Wandsworth in order to get on with council building, will be attracted away to work on houses for sale.
The third point the Minister has made is the sale of council houses. How is that to help in tackling the problem of rebuilding blitzed sites? Are mahogany doors to make a contribution to this problem? Is the increase in the public works loans charge going to help blitzed cities? I am sure that enough has been said on this side of the House to make the Parliamentary Secretary realise that

there is a very urgent problem here and I hope that he will announce that something will be done about it.
I mention the five headings under which we would like a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. We say that there should be a bigger allocation of licences to blitzed areas to help them to catch up with the more fortunate areas in providing post-war accommodation for their citizens; that financial help is needed because of the special problems confronting the blitzed areas; that the Minister must give his attention to supplying the materials required; that unless he makes a special allocation of materials the blitzed areas will lag behind all the time; that he must do what he can to help in regard to labour.
I know that labour is a local problem, and that the Minister cannot direct labour from other areas into blitzed areas where they are needed more urgently. But he can consider the point I have made, that he should not permit labour to be attracted away to residential areas like Bromley and other places on the outskirts of London when it could he more usefully employed on council work in boroughs like Wandsworth.
Finally, I hope the Minister will impart drive to those backward Tory councils who are lagging behind in the provision of houses. This is a serious and urgent problem. We are making our points briefly tonight, but we insist that the Parliamentary Secretary gives a very full answer on how his Government proposes to tackle this urgent and difficult problem.

Brigadier Clarke: I do not think the hon. Member wished to misunderstand me, although I think he did so. I said that the most important problem was the building of houses and it was a secondary problem as to who went into them. I still think that, but I was not for one moment suggesting that Members of Parliament should get a house before people at the top of the housing lists. They must come first. I do not want him to misunderstand me, or distort what I have said in any way.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I shall intervene in this debate only for a few moments, because I recognise that there are a number of hon. Members


opposite who represent war damaged cities and who ought to have prior consideration in a debate of this kind. I intervene because I do not believe that the question of the restoration and rehabilitation of war damaged towns and cities can, as hon. Members opposite have suggested, be dissociated from the general building and reconstruction problem of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) referred to areas in the last war, generally called evacuation districts, on the outskirts of the principle industrial towns. My own large county constituency of Kidderminster, which lies directly to the west of Birmingham, has swollen waiting lists for houses in nearly all the rural districts, partly as a result of the exodus from the City of Birmingham and the Black Country towns. I do not believe there ought to be any special financial or material dispensation for war-damaged towns because surely, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) so often said during his period of office as Minister of Health, the limiting factor in the war-damaged towns must be the availability of labour in the town itself. Building labour in these places is notoriously immobile, and it is futile to talk of financial dispensations or special allocations of material when the controlling factor is the availability of skilled labour.
I would join issue with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) who pleaded for the restoration of shops in Southampton. I am aware that practically all of Above Bar has been destroyed. So has one side of Lord Street, Liverpool, and Digbeth, Birmingham. But surely we must keep clearly before our eyes in this conflict of priorities to secure a measure of available materials and labour, that for re-building purposes the clear order of precedence is defence requirements first, and housing requirements second; and shops will come a very long way down the list of priorities.

Mr. Morley: I distinctly said that houses should have priority over shops.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful if the hon. Gentleman said that; I must have misunderstood him.
Let me make quite clear that shops should not come anywhere near the top of the list of priorities, in my view, in the next few years. There are far more urgent considerations than building shops. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), in the last Parliament made many complaints about licences given by a Socialist administration in the city of Birmingham for rebuilding shops in New Street. Houses must come above any consideration of that sort.
I want to speak about the materials position, in view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) and his special reference to this matter. The building materials position is not what it was two years ago. It is immeasurably better. There is no great shortage today of softwoods, or of hardwoods.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should eat into the strategic stockpile of softwoods?

Mr. Nabarro: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I might quote some figures out of my head. [HON. MEMBERS: "Very appropriate."] Well, if they do not wish me to detain the House, hon. Gentlemen are perfectly entitled to go away and check the validity of these figures. Imports of softwoods in 1938, the last pre-war year, were 1,793,000 standards. Imports of softwoods during 1950 ran to only 796,000 standards. Our imports of softwoods this year, for the 10 months ended on 31st October, were 1,443,000 standards, and, in the full 12 months of 1951, will probably run to 1,650,000 standards.
We are consuming in softwoods this year approximately 1,100,000 standards. Therefore, there will be a surplus for stock, of 550,000 standards of softwood, which, when added to our opening stock of approximately 300,000 standards at the beginning of 1951, will give us an end of the year stock at 31st December, 1951, of approximately 850,000 standards.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale will know, since he sat in this House on the 3rd September, 1939, that the stock on that date was approximately 900,000 standards. At the end of this year, we shall have 850,000 standards, so that we shall be nearly as well off for


softwoods as at the beginning of the last war. Further, there is no difficulty about softwood imports next year, other than the difficulty of being able to afford to buy these softwoods from the sterling area.

Mr. Bevan: That is the whole point. The hon. Member has, of course, given concrete evidence of the providence of the Labour Government in stockpiling softwoods. What I want to know from him, and I think he will agree that this is a serious point, is whether he regards eating into the strategic stockpile as desirable in these circumstances, or would he rely upon such softwoods as can be bought in only two areas, unfortunately, at the present time, to a large extent—the Soviet Union and the dollar area?

Mr. Nabarro: Really, the right hon. Gentleman displays an abysmal ignorance of the sources of supply of softwoods. He has just said—

Mr. Bevan: In the main.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman did not say so. The sources of supply are not only the Soviet Union and the dollar areas. Evidently, the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise that we buy many hundreds of thousands of standards from Scandinavia. The right hon. Gentleman went recently to Yugoslavia. We even buy a large quantity of softwood, and shall do this year, from Yugoslavia.
But let me answer his main point about eating into the strategic stockpile. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we intend to maintain the consumption of softwoods next year at the same level as it has been in this year; that is, 1,100,000 standards. Out of that figure, we only need to consume 400,000 standards—just over one-third of it—in order to build 300,000 houses at one and one-third standards per house.
To listen to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, one would imagine that the only purpose for which we import softwoods is to build houses. In fact, about one-third of softwood imports or less, is devoted to that purpose. I repeat that there is no great difficulty with softwoods, with hardwoods or with cement for house-building purposes. There is only one difficulty

today in the raw material chain of supply for house-building or for rehabilitation in bombed cities, and that is steel. Our policy in the course of the next two or three years ought to be to substitute timber—in the shape of softwood and hardwood, obtained in very large measure from soft currency areas—as much as we can, for steel. That could make a direct contribution to rehabilitation in the blitzed areas.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In blocks of flats?

Mr. Nabarro: The various technical organisations in this country have for the last 15 years been devoting their attention to this scientific problem, and there is no difficulty in the great bulk of house and general building work, other than reinforced concrete and that sort of thing, in the substitution of timber for steel.
Finally, one comment was made by the hon. Member for Itchen which I cannot allow to go uncontradicted. He repeated the propaganda fallacy once again, that the increased ratio regarding houses for sale would lead to a diminution in the number of houses to let. That was contradicted 20 times in the debate yesterday.

Mr. Morley: But no evidence was adduced to prove it.

Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps not. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for a couple of years to see the results of this change of emphasis in ratio, and then, undoubtedly, he will eat his words. In the meantime, he has no right continuously to make the same statement which has already been contradicted repeatedly, by the Government Front Bench.
There are so many hon. Members opposite who wish to speak in this debate that I will draw to a conclusion, but, before sitting down, I would emphasise that there should not be any special financial dispensation or any special material allocations for blitzed towns, because the sole controlling and limiting factor is the availability of skilled labour. That, alone, will control the number of houses that can be built.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: It would be very tempting to follow the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), in the matters he


has raised in this debate, but I am sure that to do so would make me very unpopular with some of my hon. Friends who wish to speak on the subject. Therefore, I shall try to make my remarks as brief as possible and not follow the hon. Gentleman in his irrelevancies.
It might be thought by some who listened to this debate—and certainly no one who listened to it would underrate the problems of blitzed cities—that very little had been done in these cities. I am sure my hon. Friends would agree that that impression should be removed if it had been given, because in my own city of Plymouth we are very proud of what has been achieved since 1945 in the building of a great number of houses, fine schools, new factories, and in the reconstruction of our city centre.
I want to ask the Government whether they are going to allow the conditions to prevail for continuing the great work already done in the blitzed cities. Some of the indications we have so far received from the Government do not give us much confidence. Not only is there the question of the increase in the interest rates, which is a very big blow to the blitzed cities in particular, but there is also a shut-down for three months on the building programmes.
It seems a scandalous thing that in the last six weeks we have had no indication of what this means as applied to the blitzed cities and other parts of the country. Some hon. Members have mentioned the question of a special grant for blitzed cities. We have argued that out in this House before, and although, of course, we would like to have everything that is going, I do not feel very confident that we are going to get it.
I believe that the best hope of the blitzed cities in recovering their rateable value and the losses they have suffered as a result of the destruction of their rateable value is that we should be allowed to proceed as far as possible with rebuilding our city centres. It is all very well for people from Kidderminster way, who have probably never heard a bomb, to come and lecture us and say, "We have got to have houses" We must have houses, factories, schools and shops, and we must have an ordered plan to carry out a programme for the

area. It is barely honest to suggest one can merely concentrate on houses.
If we were to build our great new estates many miles from schools, shops, and any kind of community life and take people out of the city areas to those places and say, "We are going to build houses only and you will have to wait two or four years for schools and shops" it would destroy the community life in those centres. It is a proposition that could only be advanced by a party that have made no study of the problem at all.
I suggest to the Government that the best thing they can do for blitzed cities is to give us every opportunity to go ahead with our reconstruction programme. That is why I ask the Government particularly whether they are going to carry, through the programme that was agreed to by the Labour Government. In September of this year in Plymouth we received licences for 11 new projects to cost £100,000 this year and £700,000 in the three-year period. Can we have a firm guarantee that none of those projects will be interfered with by the ban for three months on the starting of new buildings announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Here, perhaps, I might make an appeal to the Government. They have always been saying they want to find economies. Here is one good economy they can make and it is probably the most practicable proposition the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received on this head. My city spent something like £4 million on the acquisition of land. This bears a reconstruction grant, and under the beneficent Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, some 90 per cent. grant is to come for eight years from the central exchequer until the area is developed.
Therefore, the greater the area that can be developed the less the Government will have to pay in expenditure on that grant. It follows that the Government should have an incentive to enable us to go ahead with our reconstruction as far as possible, because that will keep down the money they have to pay under that grant. Perhaps I might hold this as "a bait for Mr. Butler"—that he should do his duty by the new cities in ensuring that we get the licences for which we have asked.
Not only are we concerned that the Government should not go back on reconstruction projects to which the Labour Government agreed in September, but we are concerned in the City of Plymouth—and I am sure it applies to other blitzed cities as well—that we should have a statement at the earliest possible moment of the amount to be spent on the capital development programme during the next year.
In Plymouth we are ready to spend about £1 million altogether on various projects. The labour is available there. I am sure this applies to other blitzed cities. If indeed there is a lengthy gap between what was allowed by the Labour Government and what is to be agreed by the Tory Government in the matter of licences for reconstruction areas, it will mean the dissipation of that labour force which has been assembled on reconstruction schemes. What the Labour Government worked to secure, and did secure very largely, was that we should have an adequate amount of labour devoted to reconstruction purposes in city centres.
What we are afraid of from the indications we have had so far from the Government—in the clumsy three months ban they have introduced and their failure to indicate before the Recess their programme for the next year—is that they are going to interrupt that programme and dissipate that reconstruction force.
We have already had one bad example of it in the City of Plymouth. I refer to the proposal for the rebuilding of the City Library in Plymouth which was destroyed by Hitler's bombs. That was turned down, I gather, under the three months' ban. Hitler burned the books in a large number of our cities, and the first act of the new Government so far as the City of Plymouth is concerned is a Hitlerite act of condemning our library to continued destruction and uselessness. This is a perfectly feasible project, where we have cut down the amount that was to be spent in order to accommodate the plans of the Ministry, and this is the way in which this flat ban has worked. We want an indication of what the Ministry propose.
We all recognise, particularly representatives of the blitzed cities, that there is bound to be a difficulty about the capital

investment programme, and our future is bound to be governed in some sense by the capital investment programme. But what we claim is that when the capital investment programme is considered, our position in blitzed cities should be considered in one sense separately from the rest of the country, because we believe we have a special claim with regard to that capital investment programme.
If we were to suffer severe cuts under that capital investment programme today it might set back the reconstruction of our cities for generations to come and they would be left in a half-demolished state for many years. That is what we want to avoid, and we want some first sign from this Government that they have made some attempt, at any rate, to understand the problems in these blitzed cities.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I feel that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) would not be very popular in his constituency if he went back there at this moment and said that he was prepared to give priority to rebuilding public libraries and shops before houses.
I believe that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), who initiated the debate, and most of those who have spoken, have made a very substantial case. I feel that they have established beyond any shadow of doubt that there is a special problem attaching to the cities which had to withstand the main force of the bombing on this country, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this subject in a very sympathetic manner.
I am sorry that tremors of controversy have intervened in this debate, because surely this is an occasion, on an Adjournment debate, when we can all pool our ideas and our help in this common cause without having to go back to much of the "argy bargy" of full dress debate on this problem, such as we had last night. I feel that it is within the power of ordinary Members of Parliament to make a substantial contribution. I know that neither Members of Parliament nor local councillors build the houses, but they can go a long way towards creating the atmosphere wherein the houses can be built. The appeal that I want to make to hon. Members opposite is to resist the temptation to play the party game when describing the Government's proposals for house


building when they go back to their constituencies.
The first point I want to deal with relates to allocations. It is very clear to some of us that political capital is being made out of the provisional allocations that have already been issued to many of the blitzed towns and parts of London, because it has been seen that the provisional allocation for next year is rather lower than last year. We had an example of Dartford, which was mentioned last night. We were told that last year the allocation for Crayford was 125 and that the provisional allocation this year is on record as being 75. Surely hon. Members ought to help their local housing committees by repeating what the Minister of Housing and Local Government has explained—that he is giving a provisional allocation; that it is not a full annual allocation; and that it is his intention to give further allocations later, once the local authorities have their first allocation under contract and the houses look like being completed.
I suggest that one of the reasons why the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) did not reach his target of 200,000 houses last year and the year before last, and this year, was that although he issued allocations for 200,000 houses those houses were not completed in the towns and cities. What the present Minister is trying to ensure is that the houses he allocates will be completed.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman should spend five minutes examining the problem before he talks such arrant nonsense. It has always been the case that a national figure could only be approximately realised, and that was done by continuing to re-allocate the local figure in accordance with the progress made. It has always been part of the administration of the Minister of Health to withdraw an allocation from a local authority which is backward and to give it to a local authority which is forward. Otherwise, we should never have achieved a national figure. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Nicholls: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman sounding so hurt. The truth is that last year the then Government built only 192,000 houses and, this year, only 185,000; and the reason lies

in what he just admitted—that they had to withdraw allocations which had been given because those allocations were not being carried out. The present Minister is seeking to avoid giving allocations and then taking them back, by issuing them, instead, in such a fashion that the houses will be built on a conveyer belt system. [Laughter.] My fears are well founded, and I am sorry that it is so. It is quite clear that, led by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the Labour Party intend to misrepresent the provisional allocations.
I make this last appeal to them. The Minister made it perfectly clear that the smaller allocation is purely the first one and that when local authorities have these houses under contract, and likely to be completed, then if they come back to the Minister there will be more. I am asking hon. Members opposite to help their local housing committees to have this explanation, because I know from personal experience that some of them are under a misapprehension at the moment.
The next point on which I want the help of hon. Gentlemen opposite is in stopping all this talk about, "A Tory council did not do this and a Socialist council did that." We know perfectly well that, whatever their political complexions, local councils have not been able to make their full contribution to house building because the local council system is not the right agency for building houses. I welcome the decision of the Minister to bring the private builders into this problem to a greater extent, because I believe that that is the best way.
All of us with experience of local government know about the inevitable delay which any local council have to face. They have to get their grants approved, and their plans approved by the regional officer; and they have to wait for their monthly meetings and the meetings of the housing committees, which report back; and there is a great delay even in making a start, which is never met by a local builder making a direct decision with the contractor.
I am not abusing Socialist councils or Tory councils. I am suggesting that the councils are not the best agency for getting houses built. We are doing no service in uttering this abuse purely for party reasons; the local councils are doing their best. It is a necessity that


they have to be slow to be safe; they are spending public money and they have to face an investigation by the district auditor at the end of the year. Because of their other great problems, I should not like to ask local councils to give very rapid and speedy decisions on spending public money which might cause a great deal of waste in other spheres. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to help blitzed cities as well as the housing problem generally by helping the local authorities and by holding back abuse.
They can also help by paying due credit to the private builders. We have often heard from the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), "Why are you talking about private builders? Private builders are already building the house."

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Heath.]

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member argues that it is already the private builders who are building houses for the local authorities, but we all know that that is not really private building. We know that a builder working for a local authority has to work to rigid specifications. He has got to fill in bills of quantity; he has got to meet the architect and surveyor who, in turn, has to report back to the council.
It is no good the right hon. Gentlemen looking so hurt about this. He has been out of local government for quite a number of years. Some of us are still in it, and we see every day what this problem is like. We have seen many cases in which the private builder on the site has been in difficulties in getting the materials required by the specification. If he were left to private enterprise he would get alternative ones just as good, but, as things are, he has to report back to the architect and surveyor, who has to report, in turn, to his local committee, and has often to wait for the committee to meet. We cannot really say that building under rigid contracts for the council we have got the private builder working at his best. It is the private builder in a straitjacket with a chloroform pad on his nose.
I am asking hon. Members to help the building industry to get on with the great task we are entrusting to it by stopping this abuse, and by stopping twisting the difficulties the trade has to face when working under local government. I believe hon. Members can do a good job of work by interpreting to their constituents and to the local housing committees the speech made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
The message I am taking to my local authority is this: "Make quite certain that next year you build more houses to rent than you built last year or the year before. When you have as many houses—and slightly more—under contract and on the way, then look to your housing list to get some private licences to hand to the one or two on the list who are prepared to build" I am advising them them, first of all, to look at the top of the list—as we all would—and to get private licences in addition to what they have under contract; and if there are not sufficient at the top of the list, to go half way down, because in that way they will be helping to face up to the problem.
The only restriction I feel we ought to put on at this stage is, that we ought not to give licences to people who have already got houses unless they are prepared to hand their houses over to the pool to be rented by the local council or to somebody in a position equivalent to that of the people on the local housing list.
I believe that the blitzed cities' problem is, perhaps, at the top of the queue of housing. But there is a queue, and the answer to their problem is also the answer to many other problems, and my appeal is for all of us really to play our part as Members of the House of Commons as a whole, and not as Members on one side or the other of it. I believe that if we interpret the new instructions given by the Minister of Housing and Local Government we can help by creating the right climate for the new house building we want.
Things are not quite so easy as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would have us believe. All of his figures were correct and significant, but there was one figure


that I feel we ought to refer to once again. He mentioned that softwood imports in 1937 were 1,700,000 standards.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend must get his figures correct. The year I quoted was 1938, and the figure I quoted was 1,793,000 standards—that is, 1.793 million standards.

Mr. Nicholls: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. The year he quoted was 1938 and the figure was 1,793,000 standards. It was from that datum line that he went on to suggest that we had more or less overcome our softwood difficulties.
It does so happen that the years 1937 and 1938 were the worst years pre-war for the actual import of softwood. The average figure of import before that was about 2,200,000 standards. So, while we have got very far along the road and are much better off now in that respect than we were two years ago, the softwood position is not quite so rosy as the hon. Member would have us believe.
My appeal—and one which I believe we all ought to accept—is that the housing problem should be treated by all parties as a matter affecting the whole nation, and no attempt should be made to make party capital out of it.

10.5 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I have no time now to enter into an argument with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls). All that I want to say in reply to him is that the time when there are so many people in desperate need of houses to rent is the wrong time to allow private builders to build houses for sale. Listening to his speech reminds me of the situation before the last war, when many people, in desperate need of housing accommodation, had mortgages on houses, and, when the slump in employment came, were unable to continue the repayments on those houses, and had to give them up.
I want to refer chiefly to the situation in Liverpool. Liverpool had a very bad housing situation before the blitz, and the blitz made it very much worse; and we still have a very big slum clearance programme which was interfered with at the outbreak of war. In my own constituency, there are houses which have no water closets at all—they are trough closets

which have to be emptied every day by the public health department. That was at a time when we had had a long series of local government Conservative control which, I must admit, showed some concern with this problem.
The blitz brought us a very much bigger problem. We have on the housing list in Liverpool at present 45,000 families, who are desperately in need of accommodation. The point that has been referred to less than any other tonight is the number of building trade workers available to build houses. All building trade workers are not house builders; some of them do not take part in house building at all. What we need is an assessment of the actual number of houses which will be permitted in blitzed areas to be built in the next 12 months and the years following, so that an attempt can be made to hold in the area the type of building trade worker definitely engaged in the house building industry.
In the central area of Liverpool, no attempt has been made at all—with the exception of a very big building owned by a gentlemen in another place—to redevelop the central area of the city. Last year £100,000 was allocated to Liverpool simply because Liverpool had not prepared and submitted a programme of their projects for the central area. This sum was placed at the disposal of the local authorities in spite of the fact they had put up no project to the Ministry of Health for rebuilding in the central area. Now Liverpool has a number of projects for the central area, and no indication has yet been given of what will be allowed by way of finance and building trade labour so that Liverpool can develop its central area.
I am one of the Members for Liverpool who, when my own party were the Government, took strong exception to the fact that licences given for building did not come into the housing programme, so that no one can now accuse me of turning tail. I say that housing should be No. 1 priority and that defence should be second. We are desperately in need of houses for our people, so that they may be decently housed to carry out their way of life. I would not, as the Government have done, put defence as No. 1 priority. Housing is No. 1 priority, and everyone of us, no matter


what party we belong to, should be helping to house those people who are in desperate circumstances and who come to us each week with accounts of their family circumstances and the distressing way they are housed. There can be no doubt that defence should come second and not first in our list of priorities.
The position would appear to be now that building trade labour used in housing is to be moved to defence work, so that we are to have a smaller labour force and fewer materials for housing. For that reason I cannot for the life of me see what is in the terrific argument which is passing between one side of the House and the other as to whether we will be able to build more than 200,000 houses. I believe that it is inevitable, with the change-over of labour and materials, that we shall not be able to meet the 200,000 houses target laid down by the Labour Government. But time will tell, and I believe that our estimation of the situation will be the right one.
There is one other matter which want to raise. I should like to speak longer, but I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is very anxious to reply to the many points which have been made in the debate. I hope that he will take into consideration the question of clearing debris from blitzed sites. If the Parliamentary Secretary looks at this question he will see that there is no law either under local government or nationally by which a local authority can compel a person to remove any debris from any site at all. This is a very grave omission in our law. Unless public danger from the sanitation point of view can be proved by the public health department there is nobody who can insist on the debris being removed.
A building may fall down or the local surveyor can say that a place is dangerous, that it has been blitzed, that it constitutes a danger for the family living within it and they must be got out because it has to be pulled down, but when it is pulled down and made into a heap of rubble it can be left there. No one can compel the owner of the site or the owner of the building to remove the debris or level it so as to make the place look decent, especially if it is in a central area. That is a very serious omission in our law which I hope will be rectified.
I had hoped that in this Parliament I would have had the opportunity, under the Ten Minutes Rule, of moving a Motion for consideration of this problem. I hope, however, having referred to it to-night, that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at it seriously. If he goes into it thoroughly, he will find that what I am saying is true. It is something which needs attention so that local authorities can insist that buildings which are pulled down because they are dangerous must be cleared away and not left to become a public nuisance.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): We have had a long and interesting and, on the whole—with one or two exceptions—very good-humoured debate. In reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), I share her anxiety about the sites which are left in a derelict condition. As she knows, I am her neighbour in the north-west. We are divided by the Mersey. My constituency had some war damage, and we suffer in Wallasey from precisely the same problem. I should like to consider the point which she made. One cannot promise anything on the spur of the moment, but I promise that the point will be looked into.
Hon. Gentlemen will be grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), for raising this subject and allowing so many other hon. Members to take part in the discussion. I am grateful to him for giving me adequate and comprehensive notice of the points he wished to raise. In fairness to him it would be as well if I dealt with his points first, and then dealt with as many of the remaining points as I can.
The remarks of the hon. Gentleman can be divided into two parts. The first part concerns financial assistance to the blitzed areas, and the second the question of special financial assistance and allocation of housing. On the question of finance, there are three ways in which a blitzed city can receive assistance. The first is by equalisation grants for rates. The poorer of the blitzed towns are assisted by equalisation grants which bring their resources up to the average in the country. I looked at some of the figures this morning very carefully. I found that


the average in the country is £6 per head. Southampton—the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) spoke—has an average of £6·86 per head, so that Southampton's average is higher than the average for the country. The same is true of Portsmouth and Plymouth. The average for Portsmouth is £6·3 and for Plymouth £6·774.
The second method of giving financial aid is the War Distress Grants. Blitzed city representatives ably and very tenaciously argued that loss by blitzing has reduced the rateable value and therefore the financial resources of their local authorities, who are less able to meet the cost of housing in their areas. That was true in the past, but it is not as true now as it was in 1945 because to some considerable extent local authorities have replaced their rateable value.
Hon. Members are right when they say that local authorities are poorer now than they were in the past, but they are wrong in saying that they are poorer in relation to the rest of the country. It is a question of what we compare them with. That applies to all the blitzed cities, with the exception of West Ham.

Dr. Horace King: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the new rateable value is largely for new houses which demand vast services?

Mr. Marples: In some cases, yes, but generally speaking the amount of rateable value is divided by the number of inhabitants, and a certain weight is given in respect of population in the area. That is taken into account in the formula on which were computed the figures I gave to the House. West Ham is an exception because they had more population driven out by bombing than rateable value was destroyed. Therefore, West Ham is a special case, and they are getting £85,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "So is Salford a special case."] Salford was not brought up in the debate. If West Ham makes a further application it will have to be considered on its merits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Favourably?"] Surely the hon. Gentleman would not want it considered favourably if it was not on its merits.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: When West Ham, which I represent with my hon. Friend, makes this application, will favourable consideration

be given, because the increase in interest rates has increased the financial problem of the local authority? Will consideration be given to an amendment and an adjustment in the Government subsidy?

Mr. Marples: The question of Government subsidies to the local authorities is being discussed next week, and the Association of Municipal Corporations will be representing West Ham and can, no doubt, bring that point forward then. I do not think that the matter of the subsidy can be connected with this financial assistance; it should be dealt with next week when all the local authorities are dealt with.

Mr. Lewis: In relation to the £85,000, which comes to an end next April, do I understand that if the council make a fresh application it will be considered on its merits?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. If the council make a fresh application, it will be considered on its merits. But the late Government told the hon. Member several times that sooner or later it must end, and I must repeat that West Ham must face up to it that it has to end sooner or later.

Mr. Lewis: Later rather than sooner.

Mr. Marples: That was laid down by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and the Government will carry on with that policy; but if West Ham applies this time the application will be considered favourably.
The third method of financial assistance is that to re-develop blitzed areas as a whole. That method was referred to by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). The more violent he became the less convincing he was Exchequer grants are given under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but this is primarily for the redevelopment of blitzed centres as distinct from housing. In the case of a blitzed centre, the procedure is that the land is acquired compulsorily and then cleared, and then, as the second stage, it is planned. That is relatively easy. The third stage is the actual building, and this depends largely on material resources and less on monetary resources.
The hon. Member for Devonport was right in saying that the Government are bearing 90 per cent. of the cost until the actual building has taken place, and,


therefore, the Government have in mind an incentive to secure speedy building. But the actual amount which will be invested must depend upon the resources of the country as a whole, and at the moment they are grievously strained, especially in regard to steel. The rebuilding of the centres of blitzed cities—it is not normal housing—requires a certain amount of steel for reinforcing bars and for structural work. The capital investment programme for 1952 is now being considered, and the amount which will be allotted to that type of expenditure will be announced as soon as possible by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Foot: Can we have an indication of the date? We should like to know if we can have it before January.

Mr. Marples: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date at the moment, but the matter is under consideration now and it will be announced.
The next subject is housing. The hon. Member for West Ham, North, raised several points, and the first was that war damage repairs amounting to £7 million were carried out in West Ham. That was paid by the Exchequer.

Mr. Lewis: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was explaining that the council had tried to get on with its job. I was not suggesting that the council had had to meet that expense.

Mr. Marples: As regards housing assistance for the repair or rebuilding of war-damaged or war-destroyed houses, this has been done at the expense of the Exchequer and the cost has not fallen on local authorities. For new houses there is a normal subsidy of £16 10s., and if housing is costing more in West Ham than in other places it can only be for one of two reasons. Either the site is expensive or the building is expensive; it may be a combination of the two. I can assure the hon. Member that the cost of building in West Ham is not out of line with comparable building in similar districts. Therefore, if it is not the cost of the building which is raising the total cost, it may be that the cost of the site is high.
If the cost of the site is high, I would refer the hon. Member to the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, Part II of which shows how an extra subsidy can be granted in respect of sites which cost a great deal. In some

cases this amounts to just over £40 a flat, where flats have lifts. If the hon. Gentleman has any point on that, he ought to get the local authority to look at their sites in relation to that part of the Act.
On the question of the subsidy, which has been raised by almost every hon. Member, I want to reinforce what my right hon. Friend has said. The negotiations start next week and all the local authorities, such as the county boroughs, will be represented by the Association of Municipal Corporations. As far as I am concerned as Parliamentary Secretary, all I can do is to say that the matter is sub judice and that I would rather await the outcome of this.
There were one or two other points which were mentioned during the debate and with which I should like to deal in the five minutes remaining to me. The first is the question of housing allocations. The hon. Member for West Ham, North, asked that special materials and labour should be sent to the blitzed cities but the housing allocations, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) knows, because he started them, are based on a number of houses for a particular local authority area.
That, incidentally, makes nonsense of the right hon. Member's statement yesterday that more houses would be built in the west or the south of England than in the mining districts, because the allocations are given by the regional machinery on the basis of so many houses for a particular areas.

Mr. Bevan: The point I made yesterday—I thought it was quite clear—was that if the local authorities gave more licences for houses for sale, that would reduce the number of rented houses in the immediate hinterland of the urban fringes.

Mr. Marples: I should like to argue that at another time, because the right hon. Member's actual words were:
A rich spiv in the south of England will be able to get a house, and a miner in the north and Midlands and west will not be able to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2268.]

Mr. Bevan: That is quite right.

Mr. Marples: No, not if the allocations are made according to a geographical area. It is quite impossible for that to happen under the system started by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Ellis Smith: They have stopped us building for miners now.

Mr. Marples: No; I think the difficulty is the question of the reinforcing bars for the rafts.

Mr. Smith: That is the same thing.

Mr. Marples: I find it difficult to follow the logic.

Mr. Smith: The Parliamentary Secretary ought to know that in the City of Stoke-on-Trent we cannot build a house—not one—unless we are allowed the steel to reinforce it. As for talking about blitzed areas, our area has been blitzed for 80 years.

Mr. Marples: I shall deal with the question of steel, if I may, because that has been raised. On 4th February there is hope of the new allocation of steel. Until then, we have made special requests that steel should be given for that type of reinforcing bar which is wanted for mining areas. I tell the hon. Member who raised the question, and who has been kind enough to send me details, that we started inquiries on this about three weeks ago and are hopeful of producing something, especially the mild steel bars of the smaller diameter. The trouble is that the smaller diameter—those with a diameter of less than one inch—are harder to get than the large diameter.
Housing allocations are made according to the needs of the area in comparison with other areas. That is the first rule. The second concerns the capacity of an area to build. It is no use giving large allocations to a local authority which has a number of outstanding houses. We had experience in 1947—I say this in no party sense—of starting

too many houses. That was disastrous. It is completed houses which count, and not houses which are only started.
The third point is the size of the programme already in hand. All areas have enough houses on hand to occupy their own labour force. If we disregard the resources of the blitzed areas and overburden them, if we allocate houses on the question of need alone, we shall run into heavy weather and will have heavy commitments in areas where labour is scarce. Therefore, we must take into account the labour that is within the blitzed city.
There is no direction of labour; therefore, labour cannot be directed. If labour is taken into a blitzed city, there may need to be, as somebody suggested, an incentive. If labour is moved from one part of the country to another, a subsistence allowance has to be paid. This is very expensive, and is a most uneconomical way of using building labour. With resources strained and extended as they are, it would be folly to move labour about at heavy cost at the present time.

Brigadier Clarke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is no shortage of labour in Portsmouth?

Mr. Marples: I listened with interest to my hon. and gallant Friend's contribution. If his local authority can prove that they have built their full allocation and have the resources and materials available, they will be given an additional allocation.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.